The Supreme Court has reserved judgement in Atiku Abubakar’s appeal challenging the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja which upheld President Bola Tinubu’s election.
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court led by John Okoro, on Monday, adjourned the appeal for judgement after taking the arguments of lawyers to parties to the case.
Apart from Mr Okoro, other members of the seven-member panel are: Uwani Abba-Aji, Lawal Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Tijjani Abubakar and Emmanuel Agim.
Mr Okoro said a date would be communicated to lawyers when the judgement is ready.
Arguments over Tinubu’s US academic records
Monday’s proceedings began with Atiku’s strenuous efforts to convince the Supreme Court to attach probate value to Mr Tinubu’s academic records he obtained from the Chicago State University (CSU) in the United States.
Mr Tinubu’s academic records have been a subject of intense legal disputes after the 25 February presidential election, with Atiku alleging that the president forged the CSU certificate he submitted to INEC for the 25 February election. Atiku said the issue of forgery of a certificate of academic qualification went to the root of Mr Tinubu’s qualification to contest the presidential election.
But Atiku was only able to obtain relevant records connected to Mr Tinubu from the CSU after successfully waging a legal battle in the United States to break the university’s resistance. The US court also ordered a representative of the university to give a deposition on the records released by the university.
The US court’s orders did not come until after the Presidetial Election Petition Court, where Atiku was challenging Mr Tinubu’s election, had concluded hearing and given its judgement affirming the president’s election and eligibility to contest the election.
Atiku’s lead lawyer, Chris Uche, sought to tender the academic records released by the University along with the deposition of the university’s registrar at Monday’s proceedings.
In the deposition, the university clearly affirmed that Mr Tinubu graduated from the university, but did not deny or authenticate if the copy of the certificate Mr Tinubu submitted to INEC was made by the university.
“We are praying for an order of this honourable court seeking leave to present fresh evidence on appeal based on the depositions on oath from Chicago State University concerning the 2nd respondent (Mr Tinubu),” Mr Uche, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), told the court, while arguing Atiku’s case on Tuesday.
He contended that Mr Tinubu’s certificate issue is a “weighty, grave and constitutional” matter, which the Supreme Court must decide.
The lawyer urged the court to admit the fresh evidence, pointing out that there were discrepancies in the documents.
He noted that the Supreme Court had a duty to critically look at Mr Tinubu’s records and reach a decision devoid of technicality.
Court raises issue over tendering of fresh evidence
Typical of Supreme Court proceedings, there was a question and answer session during the hearing of the appeal.
The presiding justice of the panel, John Okoro queried Mr Uche’s attempt to introduce fresh evidence after the expiration of the 180 days statutorily provided for filing, trial and determination of election petitions.
Mr Okoro asked Mr Uche why he wanted the Supreme Court to brush aside constitutional provision to entertain the fresh evidence.
But in his response, Mr Uche said the law only compels a tribunal to hear and determine an electoral dispute within 180 days.
He explained that the Presidential Election Petition Court could not be likened to a tribunal as it is the court of first instance in a case arising from the presidential election.
Atiku’s lawyer doggedly sought to sway the court to see merit in admitting the CSU academic records which he said were filled with discrepancies.
Mr Uche explained that section 233 of the constitution gave the Supreme Court the power to entertain questions about whether a person had been properly elected.
Another member of the Supreme Court panel, Emmanuel Agim, asked Mr Uche whether the testimony by the CSU registrar concerning the authenticity of Mr Tinubu’s academic records was conducted in a US court.
The justice pointed out that from Mr Uche’s court filings, the testimony by the CSU registrar held in Atiku’s lawyer’s law office in the US.
“We are dealing with a matter that touches on the national unity of Nigeria,” the justice said, adding that there was no official letter from CSU denying the credibility of the President’s certificate.
In his response, Mr Uche clarified:
“There is a slight distinction between proceedings in the US and the UK. In the US, that is how court proceedings are done. The 2nd respondent’s lawyer attended the US proceedings and did not raise any objection as to the venue of the testimony.”
“Mr Tinubu was represented by a US lawyer, but he did not object to the proceedings being held in Atiku’s lawyer’s office,” he added.
He further explained that depositions were more effective than letters from the CSU authorities regarding the authenticity of Mr Tinubu’s academic records.
Lending his voice to Mr Agim’s observation, Mr Okoro noted that “criminal matters have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; in this case, there are two conflicting letters from the CSU – one authenticating the president’s certificate and another discrediting it. Which do we rely on?” he asked.
‘Atiku’s request to tender fresh evidence unusual’
The president’s lawyer, Mr Olanipekun, a SAN, urged the Supreme Court to dismiss Atiku’s “very unusual application” to tender fresh evidence against Mr Tinubu.
He contended that the fresh evidence was inadmissible.
Mr Olanipekun argued that “the CSU depositions are dormant until the deponent comes to court and testify.”
He pointed out that INEC ought to have been a party at the deposition proceedings in the US.
In his submission concerning the statutory timeframe for hearing and determination of election petitions, Mr Olanipekun said “the question of 180 days is clear.
“It is sacrosanct. It cannot be shifted. Therefore, Atiku cannot seek to tender fresh evidence at the Supreme Court.”
“This is an application in wonderland. It has no merit. We urge the court to dismiss,” he added.
“The courts are bound by the law, and the law is to be interpreted as it is,” he said.
On his part, INEC lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud, also a SAN, asked the court to dismiss Atiku’s application seeking to tender Mr Tinubu’s academic records.
APC lawyer, Akin Olujinmi, also a SAN, said Atiku’s application “lacked merit”.
“t is misconceived and we urge the court to dismiss it. You cannot smuggle in a document into the Supreme Court without first tendering same at the trial court,” the lawyer added.
Appeal
Meanwhile, Atiku’s appeal against the presidential election court’s decision favouring Mr Tinubu raised issues, including miscarriage of justice.
In some of the grounds of the appeal, Atiku’s lawyer told the Supreme Court that the lower court failed to adequately evaluate his client’s evidence regarding INEC’s failure to electronically transmit polling units results to its Results Viewing portal in real-time.
He also contended that the PEPC erred in law when it refused to nullify Mr Tinubu’s on account of INEC’s manipulation of votes in favour the president during the February presidential election.
