The Supreme Court on Monday, reserved judgement in the appeals by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and that of the Presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi, and his party against the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), which dismissed their petitions challenging the declaration of President Bola Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.
The seven-member panel of Justices of the apex court, headed by Justice Inyang Okoro reserved judgement in the appeals to a date that would be communicated to parties after adoption of the processes filed in the matter.
When the appeal was called, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), representing Atiku and his party, informed the court of an interlocutory application seeking the leave of the court to present fresh evidence in the appeal.
$11.5bn P&ID judgment: Corrupt officials, private firms can no longer hold nations hostage – Tinubu
Kogi guber: Supreme Court dismisses Smart Adeyemi’s appeal against APC, Ododo
The fresh evidence Atiku sought to tender are the academic records of Tinubu, which were handed over to him by the Chicago State University (CSU) on October 2, 2023.
The 32-page document 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.
The US court had ordered the CSU to release the said documents to Atiku despite Tinubu’s objection because the court was convinced that it would help Atiku establish his allegation of forgery and lying on oath against Tinubu.
However, one of the Justices on the panel, Justice Emmanuel Agim told Atiku’s lead counsel that the deposition which he seeks to tender was done in a chamber and not in the court.
Seeking further clarification, Justice Agim said, “I expected the College to write disclaiming the documents. Does the stenographer has the legal authority to administer oath. We are dealing with a matter that touches on the national interest of this country”.
In his response, Uche submitted that the legal system in the United States is different from that of English legal system which is practiced in Nigeria and confirmed that the depositions were made in the law chambers of Atiku’s American lawyer, with representation by Tinubu’s American lawyers as well and that there was no conflicts or dispute over the legality of the depositions.
Tinubu’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) raised an objection to the admissibility of the depositions, saying such depositions have to be adopted by the individual that deposed to it before it can be admitted as evidence before a court.
In response, Uche argued that such is not the practice in foreign proceedings and clarified that the depositions were not based on a court order to clarify the discrepancies observed in the communication by the Chicago State University.
