The Supreme Court Monday reserved judgement in former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s motion against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in the February 25 election, is contesting Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the poll.
Justice Inyang Okoro leads the six-man panel which includes Justices Uwani Abaji, Lawal Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Tijani Abubakar, and Emma Agim.
…Atiku’s prayers
In its application, Atiku is seeking leave to file fresh evidence against Tinubu.
By the application dated October 5, and filed on October 6, 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.
At Monday’s sitting, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, appeared for the appellants while Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, announced his appearance for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) being first respondent.
Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, represented Tinubu being the second respondent, while Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, announced his representation for the All Progressives Congress (APC) as third respondent.
By the motion seeking permission dated 5th October and filed on the 6th, 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.”
And upon 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 further 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 and that the issue of 180 days cannot tie the hands of the apex court as they can hear the motion.
INEC, Tinubu, APC kick
In his own submission, the INEC lawyer said Section 285 of the Constitution should be interpreted to accommodate the Court of Appeal as a Tribunal.
Also in his argument, Olanipekun asked the court to dismiss the “unusual application for lacking in merit.”
The depositions Atiku is seeking to tender, according to Tinubu’s lawyer, “are not admissible in USA”, saying “it is akin to depositions which we have here in Nigeria.”
The depositions, he added, were not done in a court.
Further to that, Olanipekun said the Court of Appeal is a Tribunal based on relevant constitutional provisions, insisting that “the 180 days is like a rock of Gibraltar, it cannot be moved, it’s sacrosanct”.
Arguing along same line, the APC counsel asked the court to reject the motion seeking leave to bring additional fresh evidence.
APM withdraws appeal, Obi awaits verdict
In a related development, the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) Monday withdrew the appeal it filed at the Supreme Court to nullify Tinubu’s election.
The party, represented by Mr. Chukwuma Machukwu Ume, SAN, withdrew the matter shortly after it was called up for hearing.
At the proceedings, the seven-member 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 the apex court was overworked.
The appeal, according to the panel of judges, would amount to a total waste of time and an academic exercise since the party only wanted the apex court to “state the law.”
The court held: “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 said.
Also, another member of the panel, Justice Agim, had earlier noted that the issues the APM raised in its appeal, was previously decided by the Supreme Court.
Similarly, the apex court had reserved its judgement on the appeal by the candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Mr. Peter Obi, challenging the outcome of the presidential election held February 25.
Stop desperation, APC tells PDP
Meanwhile, the APC has said desperate resort to blackmail, disinformation, misinformation and malicious falsehood by the opposition PDP against President Tinubu cannot guarantee victory at the Supreme Court.
The APC was responding to the PDP’s statement Sunday where it expressed confidence that its presidential candidate would prevail in his appeal at the Supreme Court.
In a statement signed Monday in Abuja, APC National Publicity Secretary Felix Morka said PDP must be thoroughly deluded to imagine that it can get through the court what it deservedly failed to get through the polls.
The statement reads in parts: “Court cases are won on the strength of cogent, credible, compelling or substantial evidence, not on hollow, implausible, capricious tales and fabrications of the kind that Atiku Abubakar dumped on the court in the guise of a “body of evidence,” evidencing nothing.
“Its claim that the election was “manipulated” against its candidate is both ridiculous and insulting to millions of Nigerians who voted massively for the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its Presidential Candidate, now President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
“The PDP and its candidate’s desperate resort to blackmail, disinformation, misinformation and malicious falsehoods against the President and our great Party is intended to prospectively downplay what promises to be a spectacular and ignominious defeat that awaits the PDP and its nemesis of a presidential candidate.”
