On Monday, President Bola Tinubu asserted that the evidence from Chicago State University (CSU) presented by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Atiku Abubakar, is inadmissible.
Tinubu made this argument during the Supreme Court proceedings regarding Atiku’s appeal to annul his (Tinubu’s) victory in the 2023 presidential election.
Led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, Tinubu’s legal team contended that the foreign depositions relied upon by Atiku for the admission of the certificate were conducted in a private law chamber in the United States of America (USA).
They further argued that the necessary prerequisites were not fulfilled by the Applicants to allow the apex court to admit the documents as evidence.
In the USA, we have their rules, this depositions are not even admissible in their own courts! We have highlighted those rules in our counter affidavit.
“My lords, this is aside from the fact that the depositions were not done in the court, but in private chambers,” Olanipekun added.
Additionally, he contended that the 180-day period allotted for the hearing of Atiku and his party’s petition to invalidate the results of the 2023 presidential election has already passed.
He stated that it would be improper for the apex court to accept new evidence during the appeal stage, emphasizing that Atiku should have included the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as an interested party in the U.S. proceedings.
“My lords, this is aside from the fact that the depositions were not done in the court, but in private chambers,” Olanipekun added.
The Court of Appeal is a tribunal. The First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022 as well as section 285 (13) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is very clear.
They merely went on a fishing expedition in the US. The evidence they are seeking to tender is not at large. It cannot be compartmentalize in any where.
Even Alice in Wonderland knew where she was going. At least she was told where she was going.
“My Lords, this is an application that we believe is in Wonderland. It has no merit.
“The courts are bound by the law. The law is to be interpreted as it is and not as it ought to be,” Tinubu’s lawyer argued.
During the proceedings, INEC, represented by its counsel, Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, implored the court to dismiss Atiku’s request to submit the CSU certificate, asserting that the designated timeframe for petition hearings had already lapsed.
For news, advertisements and events coverage… 07036688365
