PROFESSOR JAILED FOR ELECTORAL FRAUD STILL NOT IN PRISON DESPITE APPEAL COURT UPHOLDING THREE-YEAR SENTENCE

PROFESSOR JAILED FOR ELECTORAL FRAUD, STILL NOT IN PRISON DESPITE APPEAL COURT UPHOLDING THREE-YEAR SENTENCE

Professor Peter Ogban, a former Returning Officer with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), remains free despite a three-year prison sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal in April.

Ogban, convicted of electoral fraud during the 2019 Akwa Ibom North-West senatorial election, has not been remanded in prison.

Conviction for Manipulating Election Results

On April 30, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the judgment of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, which on March 25, 2021, found Ogban guilty of manipulating election results in favour of then-All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Godswill Akpabio.

Ogban, a professor of soil science at the University of Uyo, continues to walk free despite the court’s ruling.

He was convicted of falsifying scores and announcing fake results in Essien Udim Local Government Area, Akpabio’s stronghold.

The court sentenced him to three years imprisonment and he was also fined N100,000.

A source familiar with the matter told SaharaReporters that despite the affirmation of Professor Peter Ogban’s conviction and 36-month prison sentence by the Court of Appeal, his legal team has once again filed a fresh motion at the Supreme Court to secure his bail—an action the source described as a tactic “to deceive the general public.”

“Kanu Agabi SAN has filed a Motion for Bail of Professor Peter Ogban at the Supreme Court whereas the convicted Peter Ogban is in his home,” the source said. “He applied for bail at the Supreme Court but it hasn’t been heard, so he should be in prison.”

Motion Filed to Delay Imprisonment

On May 5, 2025, Ogban’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kanu Agabi, filed a Motion on Notice at the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division, seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.Travel guides

The motion also asked the court to suspend the execution of his imprisonment pending the determination of the appeal.

The appeal is against the appellate court’s judgment of April 30, 2025, which affirmed Ogban’s conviction in Appeal No. CA/C/204/2021.

Ogban’s Admission and Grounds for Appeal

In his affidavit in support of the motion, Ogban acknowledged his conviction on two counts: fraudulent manipulation of election results and publication of false results. He stated that he paid the fine imposed on Count 1 and was granted bail pending appeal on Count 2, which carried the prison sentence. Despite the appellate court affirming both convictions, Ogban maintains that he has not violated the terms of his bail and has initiated steps to file a substantive appeal to the Supreme Court.

Citing Sections 233(3) of the 1999 Constitution and 21 of the Court of Appeal Act, the motion argues that Ogban’s right to appeal on grounds of fact and mixed law should be preserved.

Legal Team Seeks Continued Bail

Ogban’s legal counsel urged the court to extend the suspension of his imprisonment, referencing the trial court’s earlier decision to grant bail. They argued that Ogban deserves a final opportunity to seek redress at the Supreme Court and emphasised that his right of appeal is fundamental under Nigerian law.Travel guides

In the case between Professor Ogban and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the motion specifically seeks the following reliefs:

An order granting the applicant leave to appeal against the April 30, 2025 judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/C/204/2021;

An order suspending the applicant’s imprisonment pending the outcome of the appeal;

And any further order the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

In a sworn 11-paragraph affidavit supporting the motion, Professor Ogban recounted his conviction by the High Court of Akwa Ibom State for fraudulent manipulation of election results (Count 1) and falsification, publication, and announcement of a fake election result (Count 2). While he was fined on Count 1, he received a 36-month prison sentence on Count 2.

According to Ogban, he appealed the High Court’s judgment, but the Court of Appeal in Calabar upheld his conviction and sentence on April 30, 2025. He stated that he has since applied for a certified true copy of the judgment but had yet to receive it as of the date of the motion filing.

In the legal argument accompanying the motion, the applicant’s counsel argued that the appeal is being pursued in good faith and within the constitutionally prescribed 30-day period under Section 233 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 27 of the Supreme Court Act.

Citing judicial precedent, the legal team urged the Court of Appeal to exercise its discretion liberally and grant the requested leave, emphasizing that the right of appeal is constitutional and fundamental.

They also argued that, in line with Section 21 of the Court of Appeal Act, Ogban’s imprisonment should remain suspended pending the Supreme Court’s determination, as he has already initiated the appeal process and is entitled to continued bail under the circumstances.

Despite these filings, Ogban’s freedom remains controversial, with critics arguing that he ought to be in custody since his appeal has already been decided against him by the Court of Appeal and his application at the Supreme Court has not yet been heard.

Ogban’s Notice of Appeal filed at the Supreme Court states that he is challenging the entire judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on April 30, 2025, which upheld his conviction and sentence. In the notice, he insists that the lower court erred in several respects, including its interpretation of the charges against him, the evaluation of evidence, and the denial of fair trial rights.

In his appeal, Ogban contends that the Court of Appeal erred in affirming his conviction under Count 1, as the charge was vague and failed to specify what he did to constitute manipulation, which political parties were affected, or the scores that were altered. He argued that this vagueness prejudiced his defence.

He further challenged his conviction under Count 2, noting that the charge was duplicitous by introducing falsification, which is not an element of the offence under Section 123(4) of the Electoral Act. He maintained that this mischaracterisation, coupled with the lack of specifics on what result was falsified or how it was published, denied him a fair trial.

Ogban also faulted the appellate court for rejecting the possibility that witnesses for the prosecution—referred to as PW1 and PW2—may have manipulated results before transmitting them to him. He maintained that the court dismissed this argument merely on the basis of his status as a university professor, rather than on the strength of evidence. He argued that the court failed to consider the potential bias or error in the transmission of results by the witnesses.

Challenging the factual basis of the conviction, Ogban submitted that to prove falsification, the prosecution was obligated to present both genuine and falsified election results. He claimed that the prosecution failed to tender polling unit results (Forms EC8A and EC8B), which are the primary documents required to validate electoral outcomes. Instead, the court relied on documents (Exhibits 2 and 5) authored solely by PW1 and PW2, which, according to him, were not the authentic results from the polling units.

Additionally, Ogban claimed that the investigative process was flawed and his constitutional right to a fair hearing was violated, as he was not invited to make a statement before the investigative committee that recommended his prosecution. He argued that the absence of his statement from the prosecution’s evidence was a significant omission that compromised the integrity of the trial.

The appeal also took issue with the sentencing discretion exercised by the trial court. While the trial judge claimed he had no choice but to impose a prison sentence, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that discretion existed under Section 36(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law of Akwa Ibom State to impose a fine.

However, it declined to extend this discretion to Ogban, citing his status as a university lecturer as justification. Ogban argued that this amounted to consideration of extraneous factors and occasioned a miscarriage of justice, especially as his good character and lack of prior convictions were not disputed.

As relief, Ogban is asking the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and substitute it with a judgment discharging and acquitting him on all counts. Alternatively, he is seeking a modification of the sentence affirmed by the Court of Appeal, asking the Supreme Court to impose a fine or an option of fine in place of the custodial sentence imposed for Count 2.

Despite these ongoing legal maneuvers, Ogban remains a free man, more than four years after he was found guilty of undermining the electoral process—raising further questions about the enforcement of anti-corruption and electoral integrity laws in Nigeria.