Certificate: Atiku seeks permission to submit new evidence to Supreme Court against Tinubu

Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the PDP’s presidential candidate, is determined to unseat President Bola Tinubu, and he has asked the Supreme Court for permission to submit what he called new evidence.

In a motion submitted by his legal team under the direction of Chief Chris Uche, SAN, Atiku claimed that the evidence he intended to present to the supreme court would support his claim that President Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, had submitted forged documents to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to support his eligibility to run in the February 25 presidential election.

According to the former Vice President, President Tinubu should have been removed from office by the Supreme Court for committing the crimes of forgery and perjury.

In particular, Atiku asked the court for permission to present Tinubu’s academic records, claiming that CSU had sent them to him on October 2, 2023.

The motion states that the CSU produced the 32-page documents in accordance with Judge Nancy Maldonado’s instructions from the District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, Illinois, USA.

Atiku based his request for permission to present new evidence against Tinubu on Order 2, Rule 12(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1985, Section 137(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and Section 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, which summarizes the apex court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Despite the fact that the application was submitted on October 5, Atiku’s legal team polished the filing procedure on Friday evening.

“To produce and for the court to receive fresh and additional evidence by way of deposition on oath from Chicago State University for use in this appeal to wit: the certified discovery deposition made by Caleb Westberg on behalf of Chicago State University on October 3, 2023, disclaiming the certificate presented by the 2nd respondent, Bola Ahmed Tinubu to the Independent National Electoral Commission,” is essentially what the PDP flag-bearer prayed the court for.

In addition, he beseeched the supreme court to “receive the said deposition in evidence as exhibit in the resolution of this appeal” and to issue any other orders it might see appropriate given the facts of the case.

Read Also: Presidential poll: Atiku, Obi persuade Supreme Court that Abuja cannot be 37th state

The application was based on twenty grounds, one of which was that the deposition and documents it was requested to be introduced “would have important effect in the resolution of this appeal.”

“The deposition is pertinent to this case because it verifies that the certificate the second respondent gave to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was not issued by Chicago State University, that the person who issued the certificate did not represent the university, and that neither the second respondent nor Chicago State University ever requested nor received a replacement certificate.

“The deposition, given under oath and in front of the attorney for the second respondent, is credible, convincing, and should be taken seriously.

There is no need to introduce any additional evidence in light of the plain and unambiguous deposition.

“The deposition required the suit to be started in the United States of America before receiving the evidence, thus it could not have been secured with due diligence for use at the trial. Obtaining the aforementioned evidence prior to the trial in the lower court was not feasible.

Atiku claimed that the deposition was not accessible to be tendered during the trial since it was made on October 3, 2023, following the conclusion of the trial at the lower court.

The Federal Republic of Nigerian presidential candidate’s presentation of a falsified certificate to the independent National Electoral Commission, he argued, “is a weighty constitutional matter, requiring consideration by the Courts as custodians of the Constitution.”

According to Uche, SAN, Atiku’s attorney, a letter written to the Chief Registrar of the court had since forwarded the original certified deposition from the CSU to the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the deponent, a lawyer named Uyi Giwa-Osagie, contended in a 20-paragraph affidavit attached to the appeal with the petition number CA/PEPC/05/2023 and the markings SC/CV/935/2023 that the certificate President Tinubu presented to INEC proving his eligibility to run for president was previously tendered as evidence before the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, and designated as Exhibit PBDlB.

He included a copy of the aforementioned certificate as Exhibit “E,” which the PEPC had admitted into evidence in the Supreme Court appeal.

The identical paper, Giwa-Osagie continued, was presented with the deposition in the United States, and a certificate from Chicago State University was also put in evidence as exhibit PBE4 during the trial.

The document was also appended by him as exhibit “G.”

Giwa-Osagie continued, “That the deposition is a pertinent piece of new evidence disclosing the status of the certificate the Second Respondent submitted to INEC in support of his eligibility to contest the election.”

During the Supreme Court hearing, Atiku’s legal team stated that they will depend on the previously transmitted Record of Appeal.

“We humbly accept the facts as stated in the supporting affidavit, and we will refer to them throughout the argument,” Atiku’s attorney continued, reiterating that the supreme court possesses the authority, jurisdiction, and discretion to approve a request for new or additional evidence to be presented during an appeal.

Order 2 Rule 12 (7), (2), and (3) of the Supreme Court Rules state as follows: (1) A party may apply for leave on notice of motion prior to the date set aside for the appeal’s hearing if they wish the Court to hear testimony from witnesses, regardless of whether they were called at trial, or to order the production of any document, exhibit, or other item related to the proceedings in accordance with Section 33 of the Act.

“The application must be accompanied by an affidavit attesting to the facts the party is relying upon in order to make the request as well as the type of evidence or document in question.

“If leave is granted, the opposing party shall be entitled to a reasonable chance to present his own evidence in reply, if he so desires. It shall not be essential for the other party to question the extra evidence planned to be called.

“My Lords, we argue that this Honorable Court has established, in several decisions, the following standards for the grant of applications to adduce new or additional evidence on appeal:

“It must be demonstrated that the requested evidence could not have been collected for the trial with a reasonable amount of attention.

The new evidence must be of a kind that, if presented, is likely to have a significant impact on the case’s outcome, even though it need not be decisive; and

Atiku’s attorney, Uche, SAN, contended, “The evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, in other words, it must be apparently credible.”

Furthermore, he argued that, in accordance with other judgments that the Supreme Court had already decided, the court’s only obligation was to administer justice in a fair, equitable, and just manner.

We respectfully request that the current application be granted as it will undoubtedly advance the administration of justice in this case.

In this case, the Second Respondent was ostensibly declared the winner of the election and was appointed to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Appellants/Applicants have, among other things, contested the Second Respondent’s election on the grounds that he was not eligible to run in the election and, more significantly, because the Second Respondent submitted a forged document to the INEC.

In their appeal, the appellants/applicants also contested the removal of their pleadings, bringing up the question of the second respondent’s eligibility to run in the election in question.

“The deposition from Chicago State University, which did not become available until after the case was decided by the lower Court, is the evidence required to establish that the certificate presented by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent in support of his qualification to contest the said election.

“The aforementioned evidence has been sent to this Honorable Court and is now available.”

“We assert that the Appellants/Applicants have effectively elucidated the reasons for the postponement and challenges encountered in procuring the aforementioned evidence prior to the present, along with all the essential actions undertaken to procure and present the evidence before this esteemed court.

In accordance with Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution, Uche, SAN added, “We submit that a successful proof of the said allegation will render the 2nd Respondent unqualified to have contested the said election ab initio for presentation of forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).” This is a significant constitutional issue.

In addition, he contended that the Supreme Court had ruled in the 2017 Saleh v. Abah case that individuals who had presented a forged certificate to INEC should be immediately disqualified from all future elections if a court or tribunal determines that the certificate was forged, as it did in this case. It makes no difference if this information is subsequently falsified or desperately concealed in other elections or declaration forms.

“No respectable system or polity should tolerate, or through decisions and policies of the judiciary, promote the dangerous culture of forging certificates without consequence in order to run for office.”

The argument put up by Atiku’s team was that the case against Tinubu was “a weighty constitutional issue” that was “akin to a jurisdictional issue which is so fundamental and important that it can be raised at any time and in any manner during the proceedings or on appeal.”

Atiku’s attorney said, “We pray this honorable court to resolve this issue in favor of the Appellants/Applicants and grant this Application.”

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled a time to hear the motion.