Welcome to the long awaited Supreme Court judgement on the Presidential Election Petition..
The seven-member panel of the Supreme Court is being led by John Okoro. They are Uwani Abba-Aji , Lawal Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jairo , Tijjjani Abubakar and Emmanuel Agim (All SAN)
Atiku’s case was called up and Chris Uche SAN stood for Atiku
Abubakar Mahmood SAN is standing for INEC
Wole Olanipekun SAN for Tinubu/Shettima
Akin Olujinmi SAN for APC
[10/23, 10:59 AM] Amaechi NWAWII: BRIEF OF WHATS HAPPENED SO FAR:
-Chris Uche SAN (Atiku) says the appeals are ripe for hearing.
He said there are some pending interlocutory application and moves a motion filed 6 October 2023.
He seeks five minutes of adumberation of the application.
They are praying for an order of leave to present fresh evidence on appeal based on the deposition on oath from Chicago State University.
He said the application is predicated on 20 grounds and an affidavit of 20 paragraphs filed on behalf of Atiku.
He went on to say upon the receipt of counter-affidavit from Mr Tinubu, APC and INEC, they filed a written address dated 18 October.
He adopts the application and urges the court to grant their request.
Chris Uche also said the issue involving Tinubu’s certificate is a weighty, grave and constitutional one, which the Supreme Court. He urged the court to admit the fresh evidence of President Tinubu’s academic records from CSU presented by Atiku.
He said the Supreme Court has a duty to take a look at Mr Tinubu’s records and reach a decision devoid of technicality.
-The presiding judge , John Okoro SAN, asked Chris Uche SAN whether the Supreme Court should rely on the Electoral Act or the Constitution.
In his response, Chris Uche says the issue about Mr Tinubu’s certificate is a constitutional matter which the court should look into.
—A member of the panel, Emmanuel Agim, asks Chris Uche to explain the nature of Atiku’s fresh documents he seeks to tender before the Supreme Court.
—Justice Agim asked whether the testimony by CSU registrar was conducted in a court.
Justice Agim says from Chris Uche’s court filing, the testimony by the CSU registrar held in Atiku’s lawyer’s law office in the US.
—Justice Agim says The CSU did not issue any letter discrediting Mr Tinubu’s certificate
“We are dealing with a matter that touches on the national unity of Nigeria,” the justice also says.
—Justice Okoro seeks clarification from Atiku’s lawyer, Chris Uche.
— Justice Okoro asks Mr Uche on why he wants the Supreme Court to brush aside constitutional provisions and entertain the fresh evidence.
—Chris Uche SAN explained that section 233 of the constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to entertain questions about whether a person has been properly elected.
READ AlSO : David Hundeyin fingers 3 prominent Nigerians trying to eliminate him (video)
—Chris Uche responds to the issue raised about the CSU proceedings.
“There is a slight distinction between proceedings in the US and the UK.
“In the US, that is how court proceedings are done.
“Mr Tinubu was represented by a US lawyer, but he did not object to the proceedings being held in Atiku’s lawyer’s law office.”
Chris Uche said the depositions are more effective than letters from the CSU authorities regarding the authenticity of Mr Tinubu’s academic records.
9:43 a.m: Justice Okoro says criminal matters have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But 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.
Chris Uche refers the court to a letter earlier issued to Michael Enahoro-Ebah, a lawyer, who testified for Atiku against Mr Tinubu at the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja.
—INEC lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud SAN, asked the Supreme Court to dismiss Atiku’s application seeking to tender Mr Tinubu’s academic records.
-Wole Olanipekun SAN , appealed to the Supreme Court to “dismiss this very unusual application” seeking to tender fresh evidence against Mr Tinubu.
He sayid the fresh evidence is NOT admissible.
Olanipekun argues that the CSU depositions are dormant until the deponent comes to court and testify. INEC should have been a party at the deposition proceedings in the US, the aeniorawywe says
The question of 180 days (the statutory period within which an election petition should be filed and determined) is clear. It is sacrosanct, can’t be shifted. Therefore, Atiku CAN’T seek to tender fresh evidence at the Supreme Court.
More to come….
About Author
We are back again
Technicalities will come to play, now Justice Okoro is defending Tinubu, i laugh oooo, asking if the CSU proceedings was done in a Courthouse or office? Are these people serious at all?