How Supreme Court Grilled Atiku’s Lawyers Over CSU Documents

How Supreme Court Grilled Atiku’s Lawyers Over CSU Documents

Atiku Abubakar’s legal team faced a challenging time yesterday while attempting to persuade the Supreme Court to allow him to submit new evidence.

This occurred during the hearing of the appeal by Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which contested the confirmation of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s victory in the February 25 poll.

The Justices have reserved their judgment in both the appeal and the one presented by Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP).

Read Also Tenant Caught In Bed With Landlord’s Daughter (VIDEO)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal made by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) after its counsel, who was reprimanded for wasting time, decided to withdraw it.

Atiku and Obi are contesting the September 6 judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).

Chris Uche (SAN), the counsel for Atiku and the PDP, stated that the motion was a request for permission to present new evidence based on a sworn deposition from the Registrar of the Chicago State University (CSU), United States.

Read Also Students Organise S3x Party Inside Hostel (VIDEO)

Uche said: “It is our contention that the issue involved is a weighty and constitutional one.”

He emphasized that given the extraordinary circumstances that have emerged, the Supreme Court, being the guardian of the Constitution, should accept the documents.

Uche contended that the only objection raised by the respondents was of a technical nature.

He explained that the respondents’ objection stemmed from the claim that the new documents were not appropriately presented and that they were being introduced late into the proceedings.

Read Also BREAKING: A Spectacular And Ignominious Defeat Awaits PDP And Its Nemesis Of A Presidential Candidate – Sleepless Nights For Atiku As APC Rubbishes Hopes Of His Victory At Supreme Court

“We argue that this matter is akin to a jurisdictional issue; that the court, as a policy court, should have a look at these documents.

“It should sidestep technicalities and do substantial justice in this matter,” Uche said.

Uche said: “We have argued that this court is allowed under the Constitution and the Electoral Act and that it can still allow these documents.”

Uche responded by saying: “It is a deposition of a witness made pursuant to a court order.”

Justice Agim pointed out that the deposition from the Registrar of the CSU, Caleb Westberg, appeared to be the result of a question-and-answer session.

He observed that the process leading to the creation of the document took place in the office of Atiku’s lawyer in the United States.

Uche explained that the process occurred in compliance with the order of a US court, to which Justice Agim noted that the order did not specify a specific time for it to occur.

The justice added that the deposition, which is a sworn testimony by the CSU’s Registrar, cannot be classified as a court document because it did not result from a court proceeding.

He questioned why Atiku and the PDP opted to have the process conducted in the office of Atiku’s lawyer.

The justice mentioned that he anticipated the CSU would have issued a disclaimer regarding the documents provided by Tinubu to INEC, rather than a deposition from the Registrar.

He also raised a question about whether the stenographer in Atiku’s lawyer’s office, who administered the oath to the CSU’s Registrar, possessed the legal authority to do so.

“We are dealing with a matter that touches on the national interest of this country,” Justice Agim said.

He mentioned that the process followed by the appellants did not appear to be well-organized.

Uche argued that there was nothing out of the ordinary about the location of the proceedings, highlighting that Tinubu’s lawyer was present and did not raise any objections to the process.

He also pointed out that the legal system in the US differed from that of the Commonwealth, which Nigeria adopted. He acknowledged that the deposition was conducted in the law offices of Atiku’s American lawyer.

Uche clarified that the deposition was carried out based on a court order to address the discrepancies observed in the communications from the CSU.

He emphasized that the deposition affirmed that the certificate submitted to INEC by the second respondent did not originate from them.

Justice Okoro observed that there were two conflicting letters from the CSU regarding the allegation of forgery – a criminal act that needed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The justice questioned whether the Supreme Court had the leeway to entertain such a proceeding, particularly in light of Section 285(6) of the Constitution, which imposes a 180-day limit on election petitions.

Uche said: “Our contention is that the court should proceed in line with the Constitution, particularly Section 285 from sub-section 1 to 6.”

The Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) contended that the Constitution does not categorize the Court of Appeal as a tribunal, thus it is not bound by time limitations.

He further stated that the 180-day timeframe is applicable solely to an election tribunal, not the Court of Appeal.

Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who headed Tinubu’s legal team, contested Uche’s arguments.

Olanipekun asserted that, as it stands, the deposition is an inert document upon which the court cannot act.

In his view, it is akin to a statement that necessitates the presence of the witness in court to give it vitality by adopting it and undergoing cross-examination.

Olanipekun pointed out that the parties before the US court were different, as INEC and the APC were not represented.

He also challenged Uche’s assertion that the 180-day limit does not apply to the Court of Appeal.

The SAN referred to Section 285(13) of the Constitution and the First Schedule to the Electoral Act to bolster his argument that the time constraint applies to the Court of Appeal sitting as a trial court in a presidential election dispute.

Olanipekun contended that it is petitions that are filed at the Court of Appeal over presidential election disputes and not appeals.

He retrieved a copy of the petition that Atiku and the PDP submitted before the Court of Appeal, which was acting as the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), and presented it to the Justices.

Referring to a previous ruling of the Supreme Court in Obaseki vs. the APC, he pointed out that the court affirmed that only the issuing institution has the authority to confirm or refute the authenticity of a certificate.

Olanipekun added: “The 180 days is sancrosant. It cannot be extended. We are bound by the law. The law is to be interpreted as is it and not how it ought to be.”

He urged the court “to dismiss this very unusual application.”

Counsel for INEC and the APC – Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) and Akin Olujinmi (SAN) – characterized the motion filed by Atiku and the PDP as unconventional, misconceived, and misguided.

Mahmoud stated that the time limitation provision in Section 285 is applicable to both the Court of Appeal and the election tribunal. He urged the court to reject the motion.

Olujinmi, aligning with Olanipekun’s argument, also urged the court to dismiss the motion, citing that Atiku and the PDP did not adhere to the provisions of the relevant Rules of the Federal High Court when applying for foreign documents.

“When a party to a proceeding want to apply for foreign documents, there ought to be an order of the court hearing the matter, such was not done in this case,” Olujinmi said.

In the main appeal, the court did not permit elaborate explanations.

Counsel simply endorsed their written briefs and requested the court to either grant or dismiss the appeal.

Uche implored the court to grant the appeal, overturn the judgment of the lower court, and accede to the requests while disqualifying the second respondent.

Olanipekun, Mahmoud, and Olujinmi urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

Justice Okoro declared that judgment would be deferred.

Other members of the panel include Justices Uwani Abba-Aji, Mohammed Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, and Tijani Abubakar.

Never Miss Any News, Join Our WhatsApp Group With This Link Below

https://chat.whatsapp.com/L6TlxYS6ozI2UuJYsfqmeS