Why Atiku’s fresh evidence against Tinubu must be admitted, lead counsel tells Supreme Court
By Kayode Lawal, Abuja.
The Supreme Court was on Monday, pointedly told the fundamental need to accept and consider the fresh additional evidence brought against President Bola Tinubu in relation to qualifications for the 2023 presidential election because the evidence is rooted in the 1999 Constitution.
The fresh evidence brought by the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Atiku Abubakar is said to be germane to the good and credible governance in the country because it is predicated on the eligibility for anyone seeking to vie for the highest office in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Atiku’s lead counsel in the battle against Tinubu’s Presidency, Chris Uche SAN, made the clarifications in response to a question by one of the Justices in the Supreme Court panel, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim.
The senior lawyer maintained that it is imperative for the Supreme Court to consider the fresh evidence and attach deserved probative value to it so as to sanitize the body polity in the country.
Uche informed the Apex Court that the Constitution, being the highest law must be invoked in the special circumstances Atiku brought the evidence to resolve the political logjam and for the Court to set a new standard that would put Nigeria on the path of true national development.
The fresh evidence Atiku sought to tender are the academic records of Tinubu, which were handed over to him by the Chicago State University (CSU) on October 2, 2023.
The 32-page document was released to the former Vice President on the orders of Judge Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, Illinois, United States of America.
The US court had ordered the CSU to release the said documents to Atiku despite Tinubu’s strident objection because the court was convinced that it would help Atiku establish his allegation of forgery and lying on oath against Tinubu.
Justice Agim had drawn the attention of Atiku’s lead counsel to the effect that the deposition which he sought to tender as fresh evidence was done in the chamber of a US based lawyer to Atiku and not in the court as required by law.
Seeking further clarification, Justice Agim said, “I expected the College to write disclaiming the documents in dispute. Does a stenographer has the legal authority to administer oath.
Justice Agim had also among others, asked if the new evidence could be accepted in view of the way it came and the fact that “We are dealing with a matter that touches on the national interest of this country”.
In his sharp response, Uche submitted that the legal system in the United States is different from that of English legal system which is practiced in Nigeria and confirmed that the depositions were made in the law chambers of Atiku’s American lawyer, with representation by Tinubu’s American lawyers.
He insisted that there was no conflicts or dispute by Tinubu’s US lawyer over the legality of the depositions.
Uche counselled against the use of technicalities to resolve sensitive issues of qualifications for anyone to occupy the highest office in the land of Nigeria to make meaningful progress.
The senior lawyer argued that the Supreme Court as the custodian of the Constitution should admit such evidence and invoke section 137 of the Constitution to deal with the issue in place of technicalities.
“As a Court of Policy, Nigerians are looking up to this Court to look at the fresh evidence and come up with a conclusion that would set the country on the path of credible governance.
“This Court must jettison technicalities to do substantial justice to the instant case. The elapse of the 180 days cannot and should not tie the hand of the Supreme Court in doing justice on matters affecting the highest office in the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.
He maintained that Tinubu was not constitutionally qualified to contest the election at the time he did and that the Supreme Court must be courageous enough to disqualify him accordingly.
Tinubu’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) raised an objection to the admissibility of the depositions saying such depositions has to be adopted by the individual that deposed to it before it can be admitted as evidence before a court.
In response, Uche argued that such is not the practice in foreign proceedings and clarified that the depositions were not based on a court order to clarify the discrepancies observed in the communication by the Chicago State University.
After hearing the appellants’ motion to admit fresh evidence and the objections by the respondents, the court directed parties to adopt their briefs of arguments on the substantive appeal and thereafter reserved judgement to a date that would be communicated to parties.
Abubakar Mahmoud, Chief Olanipekun and Chief Akin Olujimi, all SAN, who represented INEC, Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC), listed as 1st to 3rd respondents had, in their preliminary objections urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit and misconceived.
In the same vein, the Apex Court also reserved judgement in the joint appeal filed by Obi and the Labour Party challenging the victory of Tinubu at the February 25 presidential election.
The court announced the reservation of the judgement after parties adopted their written addresses in the appeal.
While the lead counsel to Obi and his party, Dr. Livy Uzoukwu (SAN) prayed the Apex Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower court, Abubakar Mahmoud, Olanipekun and Olujimi, respresenting INEC, Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima and the APC, urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
In another development, the Apex Court on Monday, dismissed the appeal brought before it by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) against the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) delivered on September 6.
The court dismissed the appeal following an application for its withdrawal by APM’s lead counsel, Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume (SAN).
APM had argued that Tinubu was not qualified to contest the February 25 presidential election, having violated the provisions of Section 142 (1) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
The party also prayed for a declaration that the return of Tinubu by the INEC, as the President elect of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is null,void of no legal effect whatsoever.
That the withdrawal of the 5th respondent (Kabiru Masari), as Vice Presidential candidate to Tinubu by the operations of the law amounted to automatic withdrawal and invalidation of the candidate of the APC and asked for an order nullifying and voiding all votes scored by APC in the Presidential Election of February 25.
The party also applied for an order directing INEC to return the candidate with the second highest votes at the election as the winner of the presidential election.