As legal battle commences on Monday at the Supreme Court over the February 25 presidential election, candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has said that nothing stops the Apex Court from accepting fresh evidence of forgery against President Bola Tinubu.
Atiku stated this in his reply on point of law to objections raised by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) to the presentation of the documents.
The documents Atiku sought to tender are the academic records of Tinubu, which were handed over to him by the Chicago State University on October 2, 2023.
The 32-page documents were released to the former Vice President on the orders of Judge Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, Illinois, United States of America.
The US court had ordered the CSU to release the said documents to Atiku despite Tinubu’s objection because the court was convinced that it would help Atiku establish his allegation of forgery and lying on oath against Tinubu, who won the February 25 presidential election.
But, the respondents in their separate reply argued that the Supreme Court cannot at this stage accept fresh documents since the 180 days provided by law for the hearing of the petition against the February 25 presidential election has lapsed.
According to them, the Apex Court at this stage lacked the necessary jurisdiction to receive and decide on the fresh evidence having not been presented within 180 days.
But, in his reply to the respondents, the former Vice President through his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche (SAN) said that, contrary to the avowed position of the respondents, “there is no such constitutional limit of 180 days on the lower court to hear and determine a presidential election petition, such that can rob this Honourable Court to exercise its power in any manner whatsoever”.
According to the senior lawyer, “The parties have agreed that the Constitution is the fons et origo and the grundnorm, and supersedes any other legislation.”
Arguing further, Uche stated that while establishing the election tribunals to deal with election matters from Houses of Assembly, National Assembly and Governorship elections, the Constitution gave the jurisdiction to entertain disputes from presidential elections only to the Court of Appeal.
“Thereafter, the Constitution was intentional and deliberate in setting the 180 days limit only for Election Tribunals, and not for the Court of Appeal. On the other hand, when it came to appeals, the Constitution clearly and expressly extended the same to the Court of Appeal.
“The Constitution clearly excluded the Court of Appeal in the preceding subsection,” he submitted.
Furthermore, Atiku argued that a cursory look at Section 285 of the Constitution reveals that the lower court that heard his petition was not an election tribunal, adding that the framers of the Constitution limited the application of the 180 days specifically to election tribunals by virtue of section 285(6), excluding the Court of Appeal.
“On the other hand, when it came to the next subsection, namely Section 285(7), they intentionally included and mentioned the Court of Appeal. The trite maxim, my Lords, is “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”, meaning that the express mention of one thing in a statutory provision automatically excludes any other which otherwise would have been included by implication.
“Furthermore, when granting jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal to entertain presidential election petitions, the Constitution did not pretend that it was conferring the jurisdiction on a “tribunal”; it clearly gave the jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal. Thus, section 239(1) of the Constitution specifically provides thus:-
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Court of Appeal shall, to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to whether – (a) any person has been validity elected to the office of President or Vice President under this Constitution.”
