*Court reserves judgment on both cases, dismisses APM’s appeal
*As apex court admits Atiku’s CSU depositions, reminds him its proof beyond reasonable doubt
By Ada Okafor
The Supreme Court on Monday reserved judgment on Peter Obi and Labour party’s appeal, as well as former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP’s) appeals seeking to invalidate President Ahmed Bola Tinubu’s election.
The court however, struck out the appeal by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), after they withdrew their appeal, thereby reducing the legal battle to just two appeals.
Recall that on September 6th, the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal dismissed the petitions filed by both Atiku and Obi of the Labour Party.
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court headed by Justice John Inyang Okoro took the decisions after hearing arguments from leading counsels to all the parties in the appeals.
“This appeal is reserved for judgment until a date to be communicated to parties,” Justice Okoro declared, speaking of the LP and PDP’s.
During the hearing of Obi’s appeal, his lead counsel, Dr. Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), urged the court to allow his client’s appeal and declare him winner of the February 25th presidential election.
He prayed the court to set aside the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja which affirmed Tinubu’s election on 6th September, insisting that the judgment tumbled on legal grounds and had led to a miscarriage of justice.
The court made similar pronouncements after hearing Chief Chris Uche (SAN), who led a battery of lawyers to adduce Atiku’s case.
On the other hand, Allied Peoples Movement (APM) withdrew its appeal during the proceedings at the apex court, forcing the court with no option than to strike out the suit.
The appellant’s lawyer, Chief Chukwuma Machukwu Umeh (SAN), applied to withdraw the suit.
Following the withdrawal, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit.
In dismissing the appeal, members of the Court’s panel observed that it was ab initio, a frivolous case because the apex court, in an earlier case of PDP vs. INEC and others, resolved that Shettima was properly nominated as running mater to President Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC)..
*Concerns on conflict onTinubu’s certificate from CSU
At hearing of the appeal by Atiku Abubakar, Justice Okoro, revealed the existence of two contradictory letters from the Chicago State University (CSU) filed before the court.
Atiku in appealing to the highest court in the land, had sought leave of the court to present fresh evidence to support his allegations of certificate forgery against President Tinubun, saying the evidence was no available during hearing at the lower court.
Atiku’s has obtained Tinubu’s academic records from the CSU to substantiate his claims that the president had submitted forged documents to INEC, thus violating both the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
Atiku’s argument was hinged on the belief that the submission of forged documents by a candidate, especially one vying for the office of the President, is a grave constitutional matter that must not be ignored.
However opposing the submission, President Tinubu’s lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) argued that granting the request for the tendering of any fresh evidence would amount to an abuse of the court process snd miscarriage of justice.
During the presentation of the arguments at the apex court, Justice Okoro highlighted that it is imperative to prove criminal matters beyond any reasonable doubt.
He pointed out some significant challenges in the case, emphasising, “but in this case, there are two conflicting letters from CSU – one authenticating the president’s certificate and another discrediting it. Which do we rely on?”
The court sat amid tight security with journalists especially put through very difficult and regurgitating processes before some of them could be allowed into the court dispite being there earlier than most counsels and party chieftains.
