Electoral fraud: Court sentences varsity Professor to 3 years in jail
An Akwa Ibom State High Court sitting in Uyo, has sentenced Prof. Ignatius Uduk to three years imprisonment for electoral fraud.
![Drama As New Governor Struggles To Pronounce Budget Amount At State Assembly [Video]](https://i0.wp.com/heardvoicenewsonline.com.ng/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/STATE-HOUSE-OF-ASSEMBLY.jpg?resize=120%2C86&ssl=1)
The convict was the Collation/Returning Officer for Essien Udim State Constituency seat in 2019 general election.
After five years of trial, Justice Bassey Nkanang in a judgment, yesterday, upheld the argument of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, which prosecuted the matter to convict Prof. Uduk on two counts of the three counts charge, sentencing him to three years imprisonment on each to be served concurrently.
Mr. Clement Onwuenwunor, SAN, was the prosecuting counsel, while George Ezeugwu stood for the convict, Prof. Uduk.
The Professor of Human Kinetics at the University of Uyo (Uniuyo) who appeared on the judgment day on a wheelchair told the court that Uniuyo had forcefully retired him in 2020, over the case.
“My services were terminated by the University of Uyo and I was forcefully retired in 2020. Also because of this case, my salary was stopped since 2020. So, I am appealing to this court to give me soft landing,” he had pleaded.
In the judgment that lasted about an hour and a half, the judge acquitted the defendant on count one, which bordered on announcement of false election results on the ground that even documents produced by the prosecution, which pointed to the defendant saying he was compelled to announce the results exonerated him.
On count two, bordering on publication of false election results, the judge had asked if it could be said that compelling him (defendant) to announce false results also pushed him to go and publish same.
Justice Nkanang held: “In respect of count one, the defendant is hereby discharged and acquitted. In respect of Count two, defendant is hereby found guilty of the offence of publication of false result contrary to and punishable under Section 123(4) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
“For Count three, the defendant is hereby found guilty of offence of perjury under Section 119(1) of the Criminal Code Law of Akwa Ibom state. This is the judgment of this court in this case.”
Post-judgment appraisal
Mr. Onwuenwunor, SAN, in post judgment appraisal emphasised: “This case relates to 2019 general elections and not 2023. It was initiated by former INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner, REC, Mike Igini, with support of then chairman against those that committed infractions against the system.
“It has taken us five years to prosecute Prof. Uduk for offences he committed against the state. The judgment is going to serve as deterrent to others that may be engaged tomorrow by INEC, to help ensure credibility in the electoral process, but who turn around to sabotage it for selfish reasons.
“His (Uduk) conduct particularly is a disservice to the course of democracy in our country and reproachable breach of trust against INEC who paid him for this job he ended up sabotaging.
“On March 10, 2019 he had earlier submitted a handwritten note detailing the incident at the election, how he was chased away from the collation centre and that he was forced to announce the result.
“Less than 24 hours later, he generated another result, came up with the official final result, now declaring the winner for the election.
“He returned a winner for an election that there was no collation in any of the levels. No collation from the Polling Unit, no collation from Ward Level, none at the local government area level before it got to him as Returning Officer.
“Yet the professor made a return for that election and had the audacity to appear before the Election Tribunal to validate that same false election result. He was invited by INEC to justify his result. He threatened to take INEC to court then.
Why beneficiary not prosecuted
On why the beneficiary of Prof. Uduk’s false election results wasn’t made to face prosecution, he explained: “It’s an aspect of this matter we feel very sad about. We think possibly Prof. Uduk didn’t seek proper legal advice in this matter before he wrote INEC, threatening to take them to court.
“I am not sure if he knew that Court of Appeal had earlier taken a position on this matter, that the particular declaration he made was false and that INEC did not return any winner for that election.
“So, how come a professor in the university despite the Court of Appeal judgment that was still standing, come before another court of competent jurisdiction to still insist on validating an invalid false result he declared bogs my mind.
“At the point of this trial, before this charge was filed, that particular beneficiary had been removed from office by virtue of the Court of Appeal judgment we tendered in this court. That became difficult for us to do anything.
“So. if Prof. Uduk had sought legal advice, he would have adopted a different method than he did at the beginning, threatening to go to court and still insisting that that particular election was valid.”
No appeal —Defence
Meanwhile, defence counsel, said: “We are not going to challenge the court till we sit to look the judgment. We receive it in good faith. If it is worth proceeding from here on appeal. we will.
If it not worth it, it’s one of the cases we skip through the file and continue with others. The court has done justice. You mustn’t win all the time and at the same time, even if you’re losing, you lose gallantly. We going to get the judgment, study it and take further actions if need be.”
