Forgery

I agree with counsel for the appellant that a document is said to be forged if the whole part of it is made by a person with all falsity and knowledge of the falsity and with intention that it may be used or acted upon as genuine to the prejudice of the victim

Al-Akim Investment Nigeria Limited v. F.R.N. & ANOR LGC(2/3/2018) I

The appellant therefore had the onus of satisfying the Court below not only that the testimonial was forged but also that the 1st respondent does not possess the educational qualification stipulated in Section 177 (c) of the Constitution. He failed woefully on both counts. Having alleged forgery, which is a criminal offence, the onus was on him to establish that fact beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding the fact that the allegation was made in civil proceedings. I agree with the Court below that the appellant failed to tender any evidence, such as a disclaimer from the authority that issued the testimonial, stating that it was a forged document. Not only must it be proved that the document was forged, it must also be proved that it was the 1st respondent who forged, the document. See: Ansa v. Ishie (2005) 15 NWLR (pt. 948) 210; Eva v. Olepade & Anor (2011) LPELR – 1184 (SC); APC V. PDP (2015) LPELR – 1184 (SC): APC V. PDP (2015) LPELR – 24587 (SC). It must also be shown that the person relying on the document knew it to be false and presented it with the intent that it may be used or acted upon as genuine to the prejudice of any person or with intent that any person may, in the belief that it is genuine be induced to do or refrain from doing any act, whether in Nigeria or elsewhere. See: Ndoma-Egba v. ACB PLC (2005) 14 NWLR (pt. 944) 79.

The nature of evidence required in this kind of situation is similar to that of "mathematical precision" of two multiplied by two, equals four (2×2=4). In KAKIH V. PDP (2014) 15 NWLR PT 1430 374, this Court held thus:
"By virtue of Section 362 and 363 of the Penal Code, a party who asserts that another person presented a forged certificate must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the certificate was presented with the knowledge that it would be used fraudulently or dishonestly as genuine. In this case, for the appellant to succeed in his case of presentation of forged certificate, he ought to have presented evidence that the 4th respondent presented a forged certificate to the 2nd respondent knowing that it would be used fraudulently or dishonestly as genuine..."
In politically-oriented litigation, where the allegation of presentation of forged certificate to INEC is in issue, the accusing party must prove that the certificate presented to the INEC was forged and that it was the candidate that presented the certificate and that the two ingredients must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as held in AUDU V. INEC (No.2) (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1212) 456 at 507 paras E-F.