From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Supreme Court has rejected the request by former vice president Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to be allowed to tender a copy of President Bola Tinubu’s certificate, which he obtained from the Chicago State University(CSU), in the United States of America (USA).
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.
Justice Inyang Okoro in his ruling on the motion held that the statutory time frame of 180 days allowed for such evidence to be admitted had since elapsed.
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.
While accusing counsel of lack of diligent in pursuing and obtaining the academic records of the president from the CSU for the purpose of using same at the tribunal, stressed that section 285(5) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, expressly gave the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, a 180-day lifespan to hear and determine in writing, all petitions arising from the presidential election.
He held that since the PEPC, which sat as the court of first instance in the presidential dispute, had since delivered its verdict, no provision of the law would allow the admittance of any other evidence at the appeal stage.
It noted that the 180 dads donated to the tribunal by the Constitution, expired on September 17, adding that the Supreme Court no longer has the requisite jurisdiction to admit the document.
“This court cannot do what the trial court is no longer constitutionally permitted to do,” Justice Okoro held, adding that the applicants could no longer activate the provision of Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act.
More so, the apex court noted that the issue of forgery which Atiku sought to establish through the proposed fresh evidence, was not pleaded in any paragraph of his appeal.
It held that the Appellants no longer had the time to amend their case since the 21 days allowed for those that were aggrieved with the outcome of the election to file a petition, had also elapsed.
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.
It is crystal clear that the additional evidence did not fit into issues for determination in this appeal.
Therefore, this application is refused and accordingly dismissed,” the Supreme Court held.
Atiku had prayed the apex court to admit the fresh evidence which he said would establish that President Tinubu tendered forged certificate to the INEC, in aid of his qualification to participate in the election.
His lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, noted that though the 32-page document, released on the orders of Judge Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, Illinois, US, and handed over to his client on October 2, was not pleaded, he urged the court to admit it in evidence, in the interest of justice.
Uche, SAN, stressed that the issue surrounding the certificate that Tinubu purportedly obtained from the CSU, was weighty, saying there was the need for the apex court to focus on doing substantial justice in the matter instead of rejecting the evidence on the alter of technicalities.
On his part, President Tinubu, through his team of lawyers led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, urged the court to reject Atiku’s supposed fresh evidence against him.
He argued that the requisite condition precedent was not met by the Applicants to enable the apex court to be able to admit the documents in evidence.
More so, President Tinubu contended that contrary to Atiku’s claim, a deposition by a staff member of the CSU, which Atiku attached to support his application, was done in the Chambers of a private legal practitioner in the USA.
While INEC, through its lawyer, Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, urged the court to reject Atiku’s plea to be allowed to tender the CSU certificate, insisting that the time allowed for hearing of the petition had expired.
Counsel to the APC, Mr. Akinola Olujimi, SAN, argued that Atiku’s application lacked merit and ought to be dismissed.