Supreme Court: Atiku, Tinubu’s Lawyers Battle over Fresh Evidence
POLITICS DIGEST- Legal representatives of the former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have disagreed on the admissibility of fresh evidences in an election matter in front of the Supreme Court.
Atiku had accused the President of forgery based on the academic records he got from the Chicago State University (CSU) while Tinubu’s lawyers have argued that he can’t bring a fresh matter in an election petition whose appeal is before the Supreme Court.
At the hearing on Monday, Counsel to Atiku, Chris Uche, was the first to address the court on the CSU results.
He said the issue involving the certificate is a weighty one which the Supreme Court should admit as fresh evidence.
According to him, the court has a duty to take a look at the certificate and reach a decision by avoiding technicality.
Chairman of the seven-man panel of justices, Justice Inyang Okoro, asked Uche if the Supreme Court should rely on the Electoral Act or the Constitution, Uche argued that the issue is a constitutional one.
Justice Emmanuel Agim also sought to know the nature of Atiku’s fresh documents that he wanted to tender before the court.
He also asked if the testimony by the CSU Registrar was conducted in a court.
Justice Okoro asked Uche why he wanted the Supreme Court to brush aside constitutional provisions and entertain the fresh evidence.
In his response, Uche explained that section 233 of the Constitution gives the court the power to entertain whether a person was properly elected or not.
In his argument, counsel to President Tinubu, Wole Olanikpekun, said the question of 180 days is clear.
He wondered where the court would compartmentalise Atiku’s fresh evidence, describing it as an application in wonderland which ought to be dismissed for lack of merit.
He added that the court is bound by law, and the law should be interpreted as it is, and not how it ought to be.
Read Also:
Mr Uche responded to the issue raised about the CSU proceedings.
He said 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.”
Mr Uche added that depositions are more effective than letters from the CSU authorities regarding the authenticity of Mr Tinubu’s academic records.
Justice Okoro on his part said 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. He asked Mr Uche which one should the court rely on?
Mr Uche then referred 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 Court in Abuja.
INEC lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud, asked the Supreme Court to dismiss Atiku’s application seeking to tender Mr Tinubu’s academic records.
Olanikpekun also said fresh evidence is not admissible at this point.
Mr Olanipekun argued that the CSU depositions are dormant until the deponent comes to court and testify.
He also argued that INEC should have been a party at the deposition proceedings in the US.
Mr Olanipekun further said the question of 180 days (the statutory period within which an election petition should be filed and determined) is clear.
“It is sacrosanct. It cannot be shifted. Therefore, Atiku cannot seek to tender fresh evidence at the Supreme Court,” he argued.
Counsel to the APC, Akin Olujinmi, also said the application lacks merit, adding that it is misconceived and urged the court to dismiss it.
He added that the Atiku cannot smuggle a document into the Supreme Court without first tendering the same at the trial court.
Mr Olujinmi said the burden is on Atiku to prove why the fresh evidence should be admitted by the Supreme Court.