Supreme Court commenced hearing in the appeals filed by the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP), its presidential candidate in the Feb. 25 presidential election, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku.
Mr Atiku is before the court challenging the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court ()PEPT), which affirmed the election of President Bola Tinubu.
The apex court also began hearing of the petitions filed by the Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Mr Peter Obi as well as that of the Allied Peoples Movement,, APM, all challenging the judgment of the PEPT.
The panel of Justices hearing the appeals was headed by Justice John Inyang Okoro.
Others include; Uwani Aba-Aji, Lawal Garuba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Abubakar Tijani and Emmanuel Akomaye Agim.
The National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, the Chief of Staff to the president, Femi Gbajabiamila and the All Progressives Congress, APC, Chairman, Abdullahi Ganduje were among dignitaries present in court to witness the proceedings.
The apex court reserved judgment in the appeals by Atiku and PDP as well as the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi after hearing the submissions of their Counsels and threw out the APM’s suit against Tinubu’s victory.
The seven-member panel of the Court led by John Okoro adjourned the case for judgement after lawyers to parties adopted their briefs of argument and made final submissions.
The court also took arguments from lawyers to parties on the motion filed by the appellants to supply fresh evidence.
Justice Okoro said a date would be communicated to lawyers when the judgement is ready.
Speaking at the court, Atiku’s lawyer, Chris Uche (SAN) urged the court to admit fresh documents against President Bola Tinubu.
He said that their appeals were ripe for hearing.
He seeks five minutes of adumberation of the application.
He said that they are praying for an order of leave to present fresh evidence on appeal based on the deposition on oath from Chicago State University.
He further said the application was predicated on 20 grounds and an affidavit of 20 paragraphs filed on behalf of Atiku.
He went on to say upon the receipt of counter-affidavit from Mr Tinubu, APC and INEC, they filed a written address dated 18 October.
He adopted the application and urged the court to grant their request.
Chris Uche also said that the issue involving Tinubu’s certificate is a weighty, grave and constitutional one, which the Supreme Court should admit.
He urged the court to admit the fresh evidence of President Tinubu’s academic records from CSU presented by Atiku.
He said that the Supreme Court has a duty to take a look at Mr Tinubu’s records and reach a decision devoid of technicality.
The presiding judge , John Okoro(SAN), asked Chris Uche(SAN) whether the Supreme Court should rely on the Electoral Act or the Constitution.
In his response, Chris Uche said that the issue about Mr Tinubu’s certificate is a constitutional matter which the court should look into.
A member of the panel, Emmanuel Agim, asked Chris Uche to explain the nature of Atiku’s fresh documents he seeks to tender before the Supreme Court.
Justice Agim further asked whether the testimony by CSU registrar was conducted in a court.
Justice Agim said that from Chris Uche’s court filing, the testimony by the CSU registrar held in Atiku’s lawyer’s law office in the US.
Justice Agim also said that the CSU did not issue any letter discrediting Mr Tinubu’s certificate.
“We are dealing with a matter that touches on the national unity of Nigeria,” the justice also said.
Justice Okoro seeks clarification from Atiku’s lawyer, Chris Uche.
Justice Okoro asked Mr Uche on why he wants the Supreme Court to brush aside constitutional provisions and entertain the fresh evidence.
Chris Uche(SAN) explained that section 233 of the constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to entertain questions about whether a person has been properly elected.
Chris Uche responded to the issue raised about the CSU proceedings.
“There is a slight distinction between proceedings in the US and the UK.
“In the US, that is how court proceedings are done.
“Mr Tinubu was represented by a US lawyer, but he did not object to the proceedings being held in Atiku’s lawyer’s law office.”
Chris Uche said that the depositions are more effective than letters from the CSU authorities regarding the authenticity of Mr Tinubu’s academic records.
Justice Okoro said that criminal matters have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But 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.
Chris Uche refers the court to a letter earlier issued to Michael Enahoro-Ebah, a lawyer, who testified for Atiku against Mr Tinubu at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal in Abuja.
INEC lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud SAN, asked the Supreme Court to dismiss Atiku’s application seeking to tender Mr Tinubu’s academic records.
Wole Olanipekun (SAN) , appealed to the Supreme Court to “dismiss this very unusual application” seeking to tender fresh evidence against Mr Tinubu.
He said that the fresh evidence is not admissible.
Olanipekun argued that the CSU depositions are dormant until the deponent comes to court and testify. INEC should have been a party at the deposition proceedings in the US.
The question of 180 days (the statutory period within which an election petition should be filed and determined) is clear. It is sacrosanct, can’t be shifted. Therefore, Atiku can’t seek to tender fresh evidence at the Supreme Court.
Wole Olanipekun SAN for Tinubu and Shettima said Atiku’s fresh evidence is an application in ‘wonderland’ and has no merit.
He urged the court to dismiss it, stating that the court is bound by the law and the law must be interpreted as it is.
Akin Olujimi SAN ( for APC) added that the application not only lacks merit but is misconceived. He also urged the court to dismiss it.
He went on to say, ‘you cannot smuggle in documents at the Supreme Court without first tendering same at the trial (appeal) court’.
Justice Okoro asked what should be done with the fresh evidence.
Olujinmi SAN (for APC) said the burden is on Atiku’s lawyers to prove beyond reasonable doubt why the Supreme Court should admit fresh evidence.
Chris Uche SAN for Atiku said deposition should be admissible in court.
Olanipekun jokingly pointed out some contradictions in Atiku’s prayers where he prayed the court to disqualify Tinubu in one breathe and in another, called for a rerun between him and Tinubu.
INEC lawyer, Mahmoud, while making his submissions urged the court to dismiss the appeal, adding that it lacked merit.
Adopting their addresses, Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun, and his APC counterpart, Akin Olujinmi urged the court to dismiss Obi’s appeal.
peter okorafor reports
