.Why Atiku’s fresh evidence should not be admitted – Tinubu
.There is absolutely nothing in your appeal, Court blasts APM, dismisses case.
‘If we remove the President, then what next?’
The Supreme Court, on Monday, reserved its judgement on an appeal filled by the Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, challenging the outcome of the February 25, 2023 election.
A seven-man panel of the Apex court led by Justice Inyang Okoro, okayed the matter for judgement, after all the parties adopted their briefs of argument.
Atiku who is seeking the nullification of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s victory at the polls, is also asking the court for admit fresh evidence in the ongoing suit.
Tinubu during the proceedings, addressed the court on why it should not admit his certificate that was released to the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, by the Chicago State University, CSU.
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 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 added.
More so, he 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 compartmentalize 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.
While 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.
Counsel to the All Progressives Congress, APC, Mr. Akinola Olujimi, SAN, argued that Atiku’s application lacked merit and ought to be dismissed.
He contended that the requirement of the law was that there must be an order of a court in Nigeria before the CSU could be approached to release the certificate.
“Order 20 Rules 6 and 7 of FHC Rules, made provision for obtaining of depositions from foreign jurisdictions.
“They omitted that very fundamental step,” Olujimi, SAN, argued.
Meanwhile, counsel to Atiku and the PDP, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, argued that the Apex court, as the custodian of the Constitution, should overlook technicalities and do justice in the matter by admitting the fresh evidence.
He maintained that the fact that the 180 days had elapsed should not tie the hands of the court.
More so, Uche, SAN, told the court that contrary to the position of the Respondents, the said foreign depositions were ⁸made in the Chambers because it was a venue that was agreed upon by parties and approved by the court.
He said the evidence obtained, confirmed that the certificate that Tinubu presented to INEC, did not emanates it from the University.
Likewise, while Uche, SAN, urged the court to uphold the substantive appeal and nullify the presidential election, all the Respondents prayed the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC.
Earlier, Justice Okoro, who is heading the panel, stressed that the case was of great public importance.
However, he wondered if the evidence that Atiku is seeking to tender before the court, was not geared towards establishing an allegation that has elements of crime.
Justice Okoro noted that there were contradictory documents relating to the said CSU certificate.
“This is a criminal offence which ought to be resolved beyond reasonable doubt. So when you see this kind of discrepancies, I don’t know how we can resolve it.”
Continuing, he said: “This is a serious matter. It is not to admit the document that is difficult, but after that, what do we do with it.
“Are we going to draft a charge and ask someone, did you forge these documents?
“That notwithstanding, we are here to do justice and there is no room to cover anything,” Justice Okoro added.
The panel, thereafter, reserved it judgement till a date to be communicated to the parties.
Reserves judgement on Obi’s appeal
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has reserved judgement on the appeal filed by the candidate of the Labour Party, LP, Mr. Peter Obi, filed to challenge President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s victory at the February 25 presidential election.
A seven-man panel of the Apex court led by Justice Inyang Okoro, adjourned the matter for judgement, after all the parties adopted their briefs of argument.
Obi and the LP, through their lawyers led by Dr. Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, urged the court to uphold the appeal and set aside the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, that dismissed their petition.
The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress, APC, through their respective lawyers, prayed the court to dismiss the appeal for want of merit.
The panel said it would communicate the judgement date to all the parties.
Obi, who came third in the election, had in his 51 grounds of appeal, maintained that the PEPC panel erred in law and thereby reached a wrong conclusion when it dismissed his petition.
He alleged that the panel wrongly evaluated the proof of evidence he adduced before it and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice when it held that he did not specify polling units where irregularities occured during the election.
Obi and the LP further faulted the PEPC for dismissing their case on the premise that they did not specify the figures of votes or scores that were allegedly suppressed or inflated in favour of President Tinubu and the APC.
They accused the Justice Haruna Tsammani-led PEPC panel of erring in law when it relied on paragraph 4(1) (d) (2) and 54 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022 to strike out paragraphs of the petition.
While accusing the lower court of breaching his right to fair hearing, Obi insisted that evidence of his witnesses were wrongly dismissed as incompetent.
He told the apex court that the panel unjustly dismissed his allegation that INEC uploaded 18, 088 blurred results on its IReV portal.
More so, Obi, alleged that the lower court ignored his allegation that certified true copies of documents that INEC issued to his legal team, comprised of 8, 123 blurred results that contained blank A4 papers, pictures and images of unknown persons, purporting same to be the CTC of polling units results of the presidential election.
“The learned justices of the court below erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when they held and concluded that he failed to establish the allegation of corrupt practices and over-voting,” Obi added.
He said it was wrong for the lower court to rely on the legal principle of estoppel to dismiss his contention that INEC bypassed its own regulations when it refused to electronically transmit results of the election from polling units to the IReV.
“The petitioners adduced credible and substantial evidence, both oral and documentary, that proved substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 by the Respondents in the conduct of the election.
“The court below overlooked that the Respondents failed to disprove the evidence of substantial non-compliance adduced by the petitioners,” the Appellants stated, adding that the panel wrongfully dismissed the issue of double nomination that was raised against Tinubu’s Vice President, Kashim Shettima.
Likewise, Obi insisted that the PEPC overlooked evidence that established that President Tinubu was previously indicted and fined the sum of $460, 000 in the USA over his involvement in a drug related case.
“Imposition of a fine is not limited to a criminal conviction, as the word, in law, includes a civil forfeiture,” Obi further argued in his appeal.
Meanwhile, the Allied Peoples Movement, APM, has withdrawn the appeal it filed at the Supreme Court to nullify President Bola Tinubu’s election victory.
The party, through its team of lawyers led by Mr. Chukwuma Machukwu Ume, SAN, withdrew the matter shortly after it was called up for hearing.
The Justice Inyang Okoro-led panel had 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 be 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,” Justice 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, Mr. Machukwu Ume, SAN, withdrew the appeal and it was accordingly struck out.
The party had in its 10-ground of appeal, maintained its position that Tinubu was not eligible to participate in the presidential poll that held on February 25.
It argued that Tinubu’s running mate and Vice President, Kashim Shettima, was nominated twice for different positions by the All Progressives Congress, APC, in relation to the 2023 general elections.
