The\u00a0Supreme Court\u00a0has reserved judgement in Atiku Abubakar\u2019s appeal challenging the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja which upheld President Bola Tinubu\u2019s election.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Mr Okoro said a date would be communicated to lawyers when the judgement is ready.<\/p>\n
Arguments over Tinubu\u2019s US academic records<\/strong><\/p>\n Monday\u2019s proceedings began with Atiku\u2019s strenuous efforts to convince the Supreme Court to attach probate value to Mr Tinubu\u2019s academic records he obtained from the Chicago State University (CSU) in the United States.<\/p>\n Mr Tinubu\u2019s 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\u2019s qualification to contest the presidential election.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s resistance. The US court also ordered a representative of the university to give a deposition on the records released by the university.<\/p>\n The US court\u2019s orders did not come until after the Presidetial Election Petition Court, where Atiku was challenging Mr Tinubu\u2019s election, had concluded hearing and given its judgement affirming the president\u2019s election and eligibility to contest the election.<\/p>\n Atiku\u2019s lead lawyer, Chris Uche, sought to tender the academic records released by the University along with the deposition of the university\u2019s registrar at Monday\u2019s proceedings.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cWe 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),\u201d Mr Uche, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), told the court, while arguing Atiku\u2019s case on Tuesday.<\/p>\n He contended that Mr Tinubu\u2019s certificate issue is a \u201cweighty, grave and constitutional\u201d matter, which the Supreme Court must decide.<\/p>\n The lawyer urged the court to admit the fresh evidence, pointing out that there were discrepancies in the documents.<\/p>\n He noted that the Supreme Court had a duty to critically look at Mr Tinubu\u2019s records and reach a decision devoid of technicality.<\/p>\n Court raises issue over tendering of fresh evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n Typical of Supreme Court proceedings, there was a question and answer session during the hearing of the appeal.<\/p>\n The presiding justice of the panel, John Okoro queried Mr Uche\u2019s attempt to introduce fresh evidence after the expiration of the 180 days statutorily provided for filing, trial and determination of election petitions.<\/p>\n Mr Okoro asked Mr Uche why he wanted the Supreme Court to brush aside constitutional provision to entertain the fresh evidence.<\/p>\n But in his response, Mr Uche said the law only compels a tribunal to hear and determine an electoral dispute within 180 days.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Atiku\u2019s lawyer doggedly sought to sway the court to see merit in admitting the CSU academic records which he said were filled with discrepancies.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s academic records was conducted in a US court.<\/p>\n The justice pointed out that from Mr Uche\u2019s court filings, the testimony by the CSU registrar held in Atiku\u2019s lawyer\u2019s law office in the US.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are dealing with a matter that touches on the national unity of Nigeria,\u201d the justice said, adding that there was no official letter from CSU denying the credibility of the President\u2019s certificate.<\/p>\n In his response, Mr Uche clarified:<\/p>\n \u201cThere 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\u2019s lawyer attended the US proceedings and did not raise any objection as to the venue of the testimony.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMr Tinubu was represented by a US lawyer, but he did not object to the proceedings being held in Atiku\u2019s lawyer\u2019s office,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n He further explained that depositions were more effective than letters from the CSU authorities regarding the authenticity of Mr Tinubu\u2019s academic records.<\/p>\n Lending his voice to Mr Agim\u2019s observation, Mr Okoro noted that \u201ccriminal matters have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; in this case, there are two conflicting letters from the CSU \u2013 one authenticating the president\u2019s certificate and another discrediting it. Which do we rely on?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n \u2018Atiku\u2019s request to tender fresh evidence unusual\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n The president\u2019s lawyer, Mr Olanipekun, a SAN, urged the Supreme Court to dismiss Atiku\u2019s \u201cvery unusual application\u201d to tender fresh evidence against Mr Tinubu.<\/p>\n He contended that the fresh evidence was inadmissible.<\/p>\n Mr Olanipekun argued that \u201cthe CSU depositions are dormant until the deponent comes to court and testify.\u201d<\/p>\n He pointed out that INEC ought to have been a party at the deposition proceedings in the US.<\/p>\n In his submission concerning the statutory timeframe for hearing and determination of election petitions, Mr Olanipekun said \u201cthe question of 180 days is clear.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is sacrosanct. It cannot be shifted. Therefore, Atiku cannot seek to tender fresh evidence at the Supreme Court.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis is an application in wonderland. It has no merit. We urge the court to dismiss,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n \u201cThe courts are bound by the law, and the law is to be interpreted as it is,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n On his part, INEC lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud, also a SAN, asked the court to dismiss Atiku\u2019s application seeking to tender Mr Tinubu\u2019s academic records.<\/p>\n APC lawyer, Akin Olujinmi, also a SAN, said Atiku\u2019s application \u201clacked merit\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201ct 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,\u201d the lawyer added.<\/p>\n Appeal<\/strong><\/p>\n Meanwhile, Atiku\u2019s appeal against the presidential election court\u2019s decision favouring Mr Tinubu raised issues, including miscarriage of justice.<\/p>\n In some of the grounds of the appeal, Atiku\u2019s lawyer told the Supreme Court that the lower court failed to adequately evaluate his client\u2019s evidence regarding INEC\u2019s failure to electronically transmit polling units results to its Results Viewing portal in real-time.<\/p>\n He also contended that the PEPC erred in law when it refused to nullify Mr Tinubu\u2019s on account of INEC\u2019s manipulation of votes in favour the president during the February presidential election.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The\u00a0Supreme Court\u00a0has reserved judgement in Atiku Abubakar\u2019s appeal challenging the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja which upheld President Bola Tinubu\u2019s 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":48530,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t