Atiku requests Supreme Court approval to present evidence against Tinubu based on an alleged fabrication.

 

The request for permission to submit more evidence in his appeal against the election of President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has been made by Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), to the Supreme Court.

Atiku's plea is grounded in the testimony provided by Caleb Westberg, the registrar of Chicago State University (CSU), which affirms that Tinubu obtained a degree from the university in 1979. Nevertheless, Westberg exhibited a degree of evasiveness regarding the genuineness of the certificate that Tinubu presented to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Westberg responded to Atiku's attorney's inquiry by stating that their lack of ownership of the document prevented them from being able to authenticate it, thereby rendering them unqualified to do so.

Atiku is currently seeking to provide the deposition of the university registrar, along with other pertinent documents provided to him by the university, as evidence to support his appeal to the Supreme Court.

On Thursday, October 5, the legal team representing the former vice president, under the leadership of Chris Uche, submitted an application contending that the introduction of new material is crucial for substantiating their claims against Tinubu. The authors referenced Order 2, Rule 12(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 and Section 137(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, both of which provide the court with the discretion to consider new evidence during the appeals process under specific conditions.

The legal representatives of Atiku contended that he faced difficulties in procuring new evidence prior to the proceedings before the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja, where his accusation of certificate fraud was denied in September.

Additionally, they contended that the testimony of a CSU official, who confirmed Tinubu's graduation but expressed uncertainty regarding the legitimacy of the certificate given to INEC, is both trustworthy and plausible, and hence should be considered admissible evidence.

The legal representatives further contended that the act of submitting a counterfeit certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) constitutes a significant matter of constitutional concern. Consequently, they urged the court to issue an order for the removal of Tinubu from the presidency.

According to Chris Uche, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), the deposition from CSU was made on October 3, subsequent to the conclusion of the Court of Appeal hearing, as stated by Atiku's attorney.

The available evidence was not obtainable via reasonable diligence for use during the trial, as the deposition necessitated initiating the lawsuit in the United States of America prior to its receipt. The acquisition of the aforementioned evidence prior to the trial in the lower court proved unattainable.

In bolstering their argument, the legal team representing Atiku also referenced a previous Supreme Court ruling from 2011, specifically the case of UZODINMA vs. IZUNASO. In this case, the court permitted Wole Olanipekun, who presently serves as Tinubu's principal counsel, to present new evidence during the appeals process. This allowance was made due to the difficulties encountered by the applicant in acquiring the necessary documents.

The legal representative for the Appellant, Chief W. Olanipekun SAN, said that the trial was conducted over a brief period of three days, and the judgement was rendered on 28/1/2011. Consequently, he had significant constraints in gathering pertinent documentary evidence, such as exhibit HU2. The individual additionally noted that on July 4, 2011, they acquired the extract of the National Working Committee (NWC) meeting held on May 1, 2011, from the People's Democratic Party (PDP) Secretariat. This extract is referred to as Exhibit HU2. According to Atiku's legal representatives, the Supreme Court stated that the documented evidence (Exhibit HU2) is both plain and unambiguous, and so no other proof is required to be presented on this matter.

As per the legal professionals, the Supreme Court, in its decision to approve Olanipekun's application, claimed that the use of discretion to permit the introduction of new, fresh, or extra evidence is deemed appropriate where it serves the purpose of advancing justice. It is imperative for judges to wield their power judiciously and with prudence.

This is because approving the application might potentially result in the applicant being able to revisit their case or introduce new evidence.

The Supreme Court has not yet issued a ruling on the application submitted by Atiku.