From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

The Supreme Court has in its ruling on Thursday, dismissed the motion by former Vice President and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, seeking leave of court to file fresh evidence in his appeal against the victory of President Bola Tinubu, in the February 25, presidential election.

Atiku, had in the motion dated 5th October but filed on the 6th, pleaded the apex court to grant him leave to bring in additional evidence by way of depositions on oath from the Chicago State University for use in his 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.

The 32-page deposition was 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.

Ruling on the motion, Justice John Inyang Okoro held that the application runs foul of the provisions of paragraphs 14 (2) 16 (1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, outlaws an amendment of a petition or bringing fresh evidence after the 21 days allowed for the filling of petition has expired.

He noted that section 182 (7) of the Act for the presentation of election petition has since expired after 21 days and nothing can be clearer.
A petitioner shall not be permitted to amend his petition after 21 days. The applicants here did not even apply for an extension of time to bring in the fresh evidence.
I still wonder how the applicants intends to use this documents in this appeal.
An election petition tribunal has 180 days to deliver its judgment. The 180 days prescibed b law fir the adjudication of the petition has since elapsed on September 17, 2023.
Consequently the lower court can no longer has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the petition. It follows that this court also has no jurisdiction to admit fresh evidence as no court has powers to extend the time fixed by the constitution.
This court cannot also invoked its powers under section 22 of its Act to admit the fresh evidence. This is because the 180 days time fixed by the constitution cannot be extended or elongated.
“It has to be noted that t 180 days imposed for hearing of election is immutable.
The applicants did not even apply for extension of time to amend its petition. But even if they do, it would still not have been granted.
As it is, the provisions of the constitution has spoken. It cannot be granted
The applicants were not diligent and tardy in obtaining the academic records of Tinubu from the Chicago State University to enable them make use of them at the trial.
From all I have said, fresh evidence does not fit into the issue for the determination of the appeal and itbis hereby refused.