For purposes of clarity and proper placing, I wish to state as follows: 1. Whether the allegation is forgery, false information or falsification, they all have criminal coloration and require proof beyond all reasonable doubts. Since no court or tribunal had earlier made such finding, proving it would therefore require oral evidence which is not permissible in a process that was filed through originating summons as in this case. The accuser must state his case and get cross examined. The accused, who must be granted his right to fair hearing, shall also state his case and get cross examined. This must be complied with before the court or tribunal takes a decision one way or the other. The court of Appeal and the Supreme court do not have jurisdiction to make this finding. It is only the lower court ie the high court (state or federal) and the lower could not and did not in this case because the suit was filed by originating summons. The Supreme Court will therefore not make findings against Ikpeazu in this regard. 2. Secondly, section 177 of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended spelt out conditions that will qualify a person for election to the office of governor of a sate. Though Dr Okezie Ikpeazu duly paid his tax as confirmed by the board of internal revenue that issued the tax papers, it is noteworthy that tax payment is not one of those conditions spelt out by section 177of the Nigerian constitution to qualify a person for election to the office of governor of a state. The issue of tax is only a provision of PDP guidelines which by virtue of the inconsistently rule is null and void in view of section 1 sub section 3 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended which provides “ if any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution, the constitution shall prevail and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.” Above all, it is our law that when the constitution spells out conditions for doing anything, no other law, person or authority shall either add to or subtract from those conditions. The supreme court clearly stated this in the case of Balarable Musa Vs INEC. When INEC in 2003 directed that all political associations wishing to function as political parties must open offices in 24 states out of the 36 states of Nigeria, Balarable Musa and 4 others including Chief Gani Fawehinmi went to court against INEC. Because section 222 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended spelt out conditions that will qualify an association to qualify or function as a political party, the supreme court resolved in favour of Balarable Musa and ORS and held that no other law, person or authority shall add to or subtract from those conditions spelt out by the constitution which is the grundnum. It should therefore be clear to all that Ikpeazu will win. It is thus clear that God, the law and even equity are all on the side of Okezie Victor Ikpeazu, Ph.D. Even the human factor will be checkmated by God and IKPEAZU will win. To God be all the glory. DR ACB Agbazuere, LLM, Ph.D Human Rights and constitutional Lawyer.]]>