President Bola Tinubu on Monday said the Chicago State University (CSU) evidence presented by the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar is inadmissible.
President Tinubu made the submission at the Supreme Court proceedings on the appeal filed by Atiku to nullify his (Tinubu) victory at the 2023 presidential poll.
This is the Supreme Court scolded the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) for bringing an appeal that had been decided by the apex court. APM’s counsel, has withdrawn the appeal it filed at the Supreme Court to nullify President Bola Tinubu’s election victory. Mr. Chukwuma Umeh, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) withdrew the appeal it filed at the Supreme Court to nullify Tinubu’s election.
In the Atiku appeal, President Tinubu, through his team of lawyers led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), argued that the foreign depositions that Atiku relied on to apply for the CSU certificate to be admitted in evidence, was done in a private law chamber in the United States of America (USA).
He further argued that the requisite condition precedent was not met by the applicants to enable the apex court to be able to admit the documents in evidence.
“In the USA, we have their rules, this depositions are not even admissible in their own courts! We have highlighted those rules in our counter affidavit.
“My Lords, this is aside from the fact that the depositions were not done in the court, but in private chambers”, Olanipekun argued.
He further argued that the 180 days period allowed for the hearing of the petition that Atiku and his party filed to nullify the outcome of the 2023 presidential election, had since elapsed.
He said it would therefore be wrong for the apex court to admit a fresh evidence at the stage of appeal, adding that Atiku ought to have joined the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as an interested party in the US proceedings.
“The Court of Appeal is a tribunal. The First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022 as well as section 285 (13) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is very clear.
“They merely went on a fishing expedition in the US. The evidence they are seeking to tender is not at large. It cannot be compartmentalise in any where.
“Even Alice in Wonderland knew where she was going. At least she was told where she was going.
“My Lords, this is an application that we believe is in Wonderland. It has no merit.
“The courts are bound by the law. The law is to be interpreted as it is and not as it ought to be”, Tinubu’s lawyer argued.
INEC, through its lawyer, Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), urged the court to reject Atiku’s plea to be allowed to tender the CSU certificate, insisting that the time allowed for hearing of the petition had expired.
In the APM’s appeal, the seven-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Inyang Okoro, berated the party for filing an appeal it said was baseless.
The panel queried what the APM stood to gain from the appeal which it said was one of the reasons that the apex court is overworked.
It said the appeal would amount to a total waste of time and an academic exercise since the party only wanted the apex court to “state the law”.
“If we are idle, then maybe we will state the law. If there is nothing for you to gain from an appeal, you don’t just come to court for interpretation.
“If for instance that you win a case, there must be something to be gained from the victory. We have read your appeal, there is absolutely nothing in it. You are not asking for your candidate to declared winner or anything of such, all you want is for the President to be removed.
“If we remove the President, then what next? There are two other appeals here that are asking for something substantial”, Jutice Okoro fumed.
Earlier, a member of the panel, Justice Emmanuel Agim, noted that issues the APM raised in its appeal, was previously decided by the Supreme Court.
“We are not bound to hear every appeal. What you are asking us is to overrule ourselves. Did you not read our decision on the issue of double nomination”, Justice Agim queried APM’s lawyer.
Following the position of the panel on the matter, Umeh withdrew the appeal and it was accordingly struck out.
In its 10-ground of appeal, the party maintained its position that Tinubu was not eligible to participate in the presidential poll that held on 25th February.
It argued that President Tinubu’s running mate and Vice President Kashim Shettima, was nominated twice for different positions by APC, in relation to the 2023 general elections.
