President Bola Ahmed Tinubu contends that, at this juncture, the Supreme Court cannot entertain the new evidence that Atiku Abubakar is attempting to submit in his appeal challenging the February 25 election results. Tinubu urges the highest court to reject the alleged fresh evidence supposedly obtained from the Chicago State University (CSU) by Atiku and his party.
Read also:Presidential Poll: S’Court reserves verdict on Atiku’s case against Tinubu
Tinubu argues that since the 180 days allocated for the election petition’s hearing have elapsed, the Supreme Court no longer has the authority to assume trial jurisdiction. He emphasizes that the new evidence, not presented during the initial trial, is unfamiliar to the proceedings. Furthermore, he notes that Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) did not contest the election outcome on grounds of forgery.
Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele adds that Atiku and the PDP did not include any document or deposition from the CSU in their original plea at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC). Bamidele asserts that if such evidence had been presented, Tinubu would have had the opportunity to respond to any alleged discrepancies in Atiku’s credentials.
These arguments are outlined in the counter-affidavit and written address submitted by Tinubu through his legal team, led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), in response to Atiku’s application seeking permission to introduce fresh evidence. Atiku and the PDP had appealed the PEPC’s September 6 judgment that dismissed their petition against Tinubu’s victory.
Tinubu, in his written address, contends that the Supreme Court cannot accept the written deposition of the CSU Registrar, who was not a witness during the PEPC and whose statement was not activated through oral evidence as required by the Electoral Act 2022. Tinubu argues that the appellants have not made a compelling case for the court to override the provisions of the law.
He further asserts that the Supreme Court has lost the authority to assume trial jurisdiction due to the expiration of the 180-day timeframe provided by the Constitution. Tinubu argues that the admission of fresh evidence can only be based on specific sections of the Supreme Court Act, which, in this case, cannot be applied.
Tinubu maintains that Atiku and the PDP’s application does not meet the conditions for the court to accept fresh evidence, emphasizing that the new documents were neither pleaded nor listed during the initial trial. He accuses Atiku and his party of intentionally misrepresenting facts before the Supreme Court and argues against the admission of the CSU Registrar’s deposition and additional documents.
Finally, Tinubu likens the latest application by Atiku and the PDP to harassment, irritation, and annoyance, asserting that it lacks legal foundation and is frivolous.
