In the appeals brought by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Mr Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) against the election of President Bola Tinubu, the Supreme Court has reserved the decision.
This came about following the identification and adoption of the various processes for and against the appeal by the attorneys representing the appellants and respondents.
The seven-member panel’s chief justice, Justice John Okoro, said that the decision had been postponed. “Judgment is reserved for a date that would be communicated to parties,” he stated.
All of the respondents requested the court dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), which validated the declaration of Tinubu, in contrast to Atiku, who was represented by Chief Chris Uche.
Atiku’s legal arguments to persuade the Court to give Tinubu’s academic records from Chicago State University (CSU) in the United States probate value came first in the proceedings.
On the charges that the president falsified the CSU certificate he provided to INEC for the election on February 25, Atiku based his argument.
The former president contended that Tinubu’s eligibility to run for president was ultimately based on the issue of a forged academic degree certificate.
Even though Atiku had used the legal system to try and get access to Tinubu’s academic records from the CSU, he wasn’t successful until after the PEPC’s ruling.
Atiku’s primary attorney, Chris Uche, requested to tender the academic records made available by the CSU as well as the registrar’s deposition during the proceedings.
The CSU did not dispute or attest to the fact that the copy of the certificate Mr Tinubu submitted to INEC was made by the university, but it did plainly state in the deposition that he graduated from the institution.
“We are praying for an order of this honourable court seeking leave to present fresh evidence on appeal based on the depositions on oath from Chicago State University concerning the 2nd respondent (Mr Tinubu).” Mr Uche told the court that Tinubu’s certificate issue is a “weighty, grave, and constitutional” matter, which it must decide.
The senior attorney claimed that the Supreme Court had a responsibility to carefully review Tinubu’s records and render a conclusion free of technicalities.
John Okoro, the panel’s presiding justice, questioned if new evidence could be presented after the 180 days that the law stipulates must pass before an election petition can be filed, tried, and decided. He questioned Mr. Uche about his desire for the Supreme Court to disregard a constitutional restriction to consider new information.
Uche said that a tribunal is merely required by law to hear and decide an electoral dispute within 180 days.
He added that because the PEPC is the court of first instance in a dispute originating from the presidential election, it cannot be compared to a tribunal. Additionally, he contended that Section 233 of the Constitution granted the Supreme Court authority to consider inquiries into whether a candidate had been legitimately elected.
But another panellist, Emmanuel Agim, questioned Mr Uche as to whether the CSU registrar’s testimony on the legitimacy of Tinubu’s academic records was delivered in a US court. He emphasized that according to Uche’s court documents, the CSU registrar’s testimony took place in Atiku’s attorney’s office in the US.
“We are dealing with a matter that touches on the national unity of Nigeria,” the justice said, adding that there was no official letter from CSU denying the credibility of the president’s certificate.
In his response, Uche clarified: “There is a slight distinction between proceedings in the US and the UK. In the US, that is how court proceedings are done. The second respondent’s lawyer attended the US proceedings and did not raise any objection as to the venue of the testimony.
“Tinubu was represented by a US lawyer, but he did not object to the proceedings being held in Atiku’s lawyer’s office.”
Uche further explained that depositions were more effective than letters from the CSU authorities regarding the authenticity of Tinubu’s academic records.
Flowing from Justice Agim’s inquiry, the presiding Justice, Okoro, posed: “Criminal matters have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; in this case, there are two conflicting letters from the CSU—one authenticating the president’s certificate and another discrediting it. Which do we rely on?” he asked.
Responding, Uche referred the court to a letter earlier issued to Michael Enahoro-Ebah, a lawyer, who testified for Atiku against Mr. Tinubu at the PEPC in Abuja.
In his submission on the matter, lead counsel to the president, Chief Wole Olanipekun, urged the Supreme Court to dismiss Atiku’s “very unusual application” to tender fresh evidence against Tinubu.
He contended that the fresh evidence was inadmissible on the ground that “the CSU depositions are dormant until the deponent comes to court and testifies.”
He pointed out that INEC ought to have been a party to the deposition proceedings in the US.
In his submission concerning the statutory timeframe for hearing and determining election petitions, Mr Olanipekun said the question of 180 days was clear.
“It is sacrosanct. It cannot be shifted. Therefore, Atiku cannot seek to tender fresh evidence at the Supreme Court. This is an application in Wonderland. It has no merit. We urge the court to dismiss. The courts are bound by the law, and the law is to be interpreted as it is,” he said.
On his part, INEC lawyer Abubakar Mahmoud asked the court to dismiss Atiku’s application seeking to tender Tinubu’s academic records.
APC lawyer, Akin Olujinmi said Atiku’s application “lacked merit. It is misconceived and we urge the court to dismiss it. You cannot smuggle a document into the Supreme Court without first tendering the same at the trial court,” the lawyer added.
In his main argument, the former vice president insisted that the PEPC panel erred in law when it failed to nullify the presidential election on the grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022, even when evidence showed that INEC acted in breach of extant laws and regulations guiding the conduct of elections.
He accused the PEPC of reaching its unanimous decision based on gross misconstruction and misrepresentation of provisions of both the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the Electoral Act, 2022.
According to him, “The lower court erred in law when it refused to uphold the mandate of electronic transmission of results for confirmation and verification of final results introduced by the Electoral Act 2022 for transparency and integrity of results by the principles of the Act.”
He argued, among other issues, that sections 64(4) and (5) of the Electoral Act, as well as INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of the Election, which he tendered in evidence, made mandatory the use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, machines for electronic transmission of results of the election directly from the polling units to INEC’s collation system for the verification, confirmation, and collation of results before the announcement.
In another petition, Justice Okoro, leading six other justices, dismissed the appeal filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), saying that hearing it would amount to a waste of the precious time of the court.
The APM had in the appeal prayed the court to hold that the PEPC misconceived the material facts before it when it struck out its undefended petition against Tinubu’s victory.
The party asked the court to hold that the withdrawal of Kabiru Masari from the race, by operation of law, amounted to automatic withdrawal and invalidation of the candidature of Tinubu as the presidential candidate of the APC.
Masari was named the running mate of Tinubu before he was replaced by Vice President Shetima
The APM said in its brief argument by its counsel that the PEPC wrongly struck out its petition. The party prayed to the court to set aside the decision of the lower court as being misconceived.
APM also argued that the striking out of Masari’s name from its petition and its consequent dismissal on Sept. 6 was in error, as Masari was a necessary party in the petition.
The PEPC had dismissed APM’s petition based on pre-hearing motions filed by INEC, APC, and Shettima.
According to the APM, the grounds upon which its petition was predicated were that Tinubu was, at the time of the presidential election, not qualified to contest in line with Section 134(1)(a) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
The counsel told the court that the PEPC misconceived the material facts and case of his client wrongly progressed to determine issues not contemplated by the appellant’s petition, and erroneously dismissed the petition.
However, efforts by the lawyer to move the appeal were rejected by the panel because moving it would amount to wasting the precious time of the court.
Justice Inyang Okoro, the presiding justice, insisted that the appeal be withdrawn since the issue had been decided.
“We have read your appeal and the issues raised therein. You are not asking us to make your candidate the president if your appeal succeeds.
“You just want to state the law and go home, without benefit. We have other appeals that are substantial, and withdrawing this appeal will help reduce the workload on us. We have read the appeal and are unanimous that it is a non-issue, having been pronounced upon by this court,’’ Justice Okoro said.
APM’s counsel, though reluctantly, accepted and withdrew the appeal on behalf of his client.
All the respondents did not oppose the withdrawal and did not ask for the cost. The seven-member panel consequently dismissed the appeal after it was withdrawn by the appellant.
Source: The Sun
Comments