Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate in the previous election, has sought Supreme Court’s permission to introduce fresh evidence of corruption against President Bola Tinubu in his push for nullification of the February 25 election results.
Atiku argued that the use of forged documents in an election constitutes a grave offense that should not be dismissed on technical grounds.
Atiku and PDP assert that Tinubu’s participation in the February 25 presidential election, which he won, should have been invalidated due to alleged forgery and perjury.
They filed a petition with the presidential election petition tribunal, claiming that Tinubu submitted forged documents to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to qualify for the 2023 general election.
Specifically, they accused Tinubu of presenting a forged certificate from Chicago State University (CSU) as part of his educational qualifications.
Previously , the tribunal, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, dismissed Atiku’s evidence and the testimony of his witness regarding the alleged forgery and perjury.
Nonetheless, before the tribunal’s September 6 judgment, Atiku initiated legal proceedings in the United States to compel CSU to release Tinubu’s academic records.
This was intended to prove that the certificate submitted to INEC in 2022 was not issued by the institution. Upon receiving the requested records, Atiku sought the Supreme Court’s permission on October 6 to introduce this new evidence against the president.
Tinubu, however, opposes the presentation of these records, asserting a lack of jurisdiction and contending that the qualification issue falls under the purview of a high court, deeming the objections raised by the applicants as mere technicalities. He emphasizes that the allegations against the president are of such gravity that they should be considered on their merits rather than dismissed on procedural grounds.
Atiku, countering Tinubu’s arguments, maintains that matters of merit should not be addressed during the interlocutory phase. The appellants/applicants stress that their current request is solely for permission to present fresh evidence, and refusing this leave, as the respondents argue, would be an undue reliance on technicalities.
In essence, Atiku is fervently pursuing the introduction of new evidence that he believes substantiates the grave allegations of presenting forged documents by a candidate vying for the highest office in the nation. The outcome of this legal battle carries significant implications for the ongoing dispute surrounding President Tinubu’s qualifications.
Here is the motion: “The Supreme Court, as the Apex Court and indeed the Policy Court, has intervened time and again to do substantial justice in such matters of great constitutional importance, as it did in the case of AMAECHI vs. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227 and OBI vs. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1046) 565. The Supreme Court applied the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium to ensure substantial justice is done in such novel scenarios.
“The need to rebuff, eschew, and reject technicality and the duty of Court to ensure substantial justice is very germane in this matter, given the gravity of the constitutional issue involved in deciding whether a candidate for the highest office in the land, the office of President of the Country, presented a forged certificate or not.
“In urging the Honourable Court to overrule the objections of the Respondents, we can do no better than to commend to your noble Lordships the insightful words of the Supreme Court in ASSAH & ORS V. KARA & ORS (2014) LPELR-24212(SC), per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC as follows:
“Law is blind. It has no eyes. It cannot see. That explains why a statue of a woman with her eyes covered can be found in front of some High Courts. On the contrary, justice is not blind. It has many eyes, it sees and sees very well.
“The aim of Courts is to do substantial justice between the parties and any technicality that rears its ugly head to defeat the cause of justice will be rebuffed by the Court.”
