Atiku Moves Application for Leave to Present Allege Fresh Forgery Evidence against Tinubu

Alex Enumah in Abuja

The candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last presidential election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, on Monday moved his application seeking leave of the Supreme Court to present fresh evidence of forgery against President Bola Tinubu.

Atiku through his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), informed the court that the fresh evidence is crucial to his appeal before the court, adding that the court has inherent jurisdiction to entertain the application and decide on it.

In urging the apex court to grant the application, Uche submitted that what the court should consider is whether the application was not properly pleaded and whether it was coming late.

The senior lawyer pointed out that the issue of submitting forged document to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is a  serious constitutional issue that must not be ignored.

“No matter the time it is brought, the court has a duty to look at it,” Uche said, adding that the apex court should side step technicality and adopt the principle of substantial justice in this instance.

Responding to the questions on jurisdiction and legality of the documents, raised by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the senior lawyer maintained that the Court of Appeal is not like other election tribunals that are bound by 180 days.

He disagreed that the fact that the deposition took place in the office of Atiku’s lawyer robbed it of any legality, since parties including Tinubu’s lawyer, agreed to the place of deposition and were present and did not raise any objections.

He pointed out that the deposition was carried out on the orders of a United States District Court and as such is valid.

Also, on why the Chicago State University (CSU) did not issue a letter disclaiming the certificate Tinubu presented to INEC, Uche explained that the institution may have considered deposition better than a written letter, adding that the issuance of two conflicting letters on the issue by the institution necessitated the deposition.

However, the respondents, in adopting their replies, urged the court to dismiss the application for lacking in merit.

The lead counsel to INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), pointed out that all election tribunals were established by Section 285 of the Constitution and that the Court of Appeal is not exempted and is bound by the 180 days for the hearing and determination of election petitions.

Similarly, Tinubu’s lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), while aligning with the submission of INEC on jurisdiction, pointed out that the deposition Atiku sought to present before the court is not admissible even in the US. 

He explained that for it to be admissible, the deponent would have to come before the court to adopt the deposition.

Besides, Olanipekun while submitting that INEC ought to have been a party at the deposition, argued that the issue is at large as the court would not know where to place it within the petition or arguments of the appellants.

Also responding, the All Progressives Congress (APC) through its lead counsel, Chief Akin Olujimi (SAN), urged the apex court to dismiss the application on the grounds that the applicant failed to have started at the very court trying the matter.

Meanwhile, the court will deliver its ruling in the application to present fresh evidence alongside the main appeal which has been reserved for judgment.

Details later…