The Supreme Court appears to be in a fix on the authenticity or otherwise of the Certificate obtained by President Bola Tinubu at the Chicago State University (CSU).
A member of panel of Justices hearing the appeal against his electoral victory at the February 25 presidential election, Justice Iyang Okoro, disclosed this on Monday morning at the resumed hearing of the case.
“…there are two conflicting letters from the Chicago State University – one authenticating the president’s certificate and another discrediting it. Which do we rely on?,” he stated.
Meanwhile, Justice Inyang Okoro is leading six other Justices of the Supreme Court, to hear the motion filed by former Vice President and presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the February 25 election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, seeking leave to file fresh evidence against President Tinubu.
Atiku is seeking an order granting him leave “to produce and for the court to receive fresh and additional evidence by way of deposition on oath from the Chicago State University for use in this appeal to wit: the certified discovery deposition made by Caleb Westberg on behalf of Chicago State University on October 3, 2023, disclaiming the certificate presented by the 2nd respondent, Bola Ahmed Tinubu to the Independent National Electoral Commission.”
Other Justices on the 7-man panel are Uwani Abaji, Lawal Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Tijani Abubakar, and Emma Agim.
During the sitting on Monday, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, appeared for the appellants; Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN announced appearance for the Independent National Electoral Commission (1st Respondent) and Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN announced legal representation for the All Progressives Congress (3rd Respondent).
By the motion seeking permission dated October 5, 2023 and filed on October 6, Uche said, “We are praying for an order of leave to present fresh evidence on appeal pursuant to the powers of the Supreme Court, particularly the depositions on oath from the Chicago State University.”
Adumbrating after moving the motion, Atiku’s lawyer told the panel that Tinubu, APC and INEC were opposing the application “essentially on technical grounds, not pleaded and coming late.”
Uched argued that the motion was akin to jurisdictional issue not minding when it was filed, adding that the apex court should side-step technicality and grant the request.
Uche insisted that the motion is a constitutional issue, adding that the issue of 180-day timeframe cannot tie the hands of the apex court as they can hear the motion.
Reacting, the INEC lawyer said section 285 of the 1999 Constitution should be interpreted to accommodate the Court of Appeal as a Tribunal.
On his part, Tinubu asked the court to dismiss the “unusual application for lacking in merit.”
Tinubu’s Lawyer said the depositions Atiku is seeking to tender “are not admissible in USA. It is akin to depositions which we have here in Nigeria. The depositions were not done in a court.
Reacting also, the lawyer to the APC, asked the court to reject the motion seeking a leave to bring additional fresh evidence by Atiku.
previous post
