By Deborah Onyofufeke, Abuja
There is palpable tension in the country as Nigerians from all walks of life are looking up to the Supreme Court to deliver judgement on the appeals filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, and his Labour Party (LP) counterpart, Peter Obi, against the 2023 presidential poll victory of Bola Tinubu.
Since the Presidential election delivered its judgement on September 6th there have been mixed reactions some Nigerians expressed utter disappointment at the verdict and as such hoped that the apex court would up-turn the verdict of the appeal court today in favour of their preferred candidate.
Also, some are of the view that the judgement truly reflected all that transpired during the presidential election on February 25 that the opposition claimed was fraught with irregularities.
However, these divergent views have triggered palpable tension.
During last Monday’s proceeding, the parties in the matter adopted their final briefs of argument before a seven-member panel of Justices headed by Justice John Inyang Okoro who heard their appeals.
READ ALSO:NNL board postpones league kickoff date
After this, the court reserved judgement on the two appeals and noted that it would communicate a date for the judgement to the parties involved.
The Supreme Court’s Director of Press and Information, Dr Festus Akande confirmed yesterday that the Supreme Court has fixed October 26 for the judgement and all parties in the appeal have been communicated on this date accordingly through a notice that was signed by one of its Registrars.
Atiku, Obi, and their various political parties are individually contesting the February 25 election result and separately seeking to nullify the declaration made by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
They are also praying the Supreme Court set aside the September 6 judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, which dismissed their allegation that the election was rigged in favour of President Tinubu.
Atiku, in fresh evidence filed before the apex court, alleged that President Tinubu tendered a fake Chicago State University (CSU) certificate to INEC for eligibility to contest in the election.
Recall that during Monday’s proceedings, Chief Chris Uche (SAN) who led the legal team of Atiku and PDP informed the court of an interlocutory application seeking the leave of the court to present fresh evidence in the appeal.
The fresh evidence Atiku sought to tender is the academic records of Tinubu, which Atiku claimed were handed over to him by the Chicago State University (CSU) on October 2, 2023.
Atiku further added that the 32-page document was released to him on the orders of Judge Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, Illinois, in the United States.
The US court had ordered the CSU to release the said documents to Atiku despite Tinubu’s objection.
However, one of the Justices on the panel, Justice Emmanuel Agim told Atiku’s lead counsel that the deposition which he sought to tender as evidence was done in the chamber of lawyer to Atiku and not in the court as required by law.
Seeking further clarification, Justice Agim said, “I expected the College to write disclaiming the documents in dispute. Does a stenographer have the legal authority to administer an oath? We are dealing with a matter that touches on the national interest of this country”.
Uche in his response held that the legal system in the United States is different from that of the English legal system which is practiced in Nigeria and confirmed that the depositions were made in the law chambers of Atiku’s American lawyer, with representation by Tinubu’s American lawyers.
Uche requested that in the absence of outright disqualification, a rerun should be declared between Atiku the second runner-up in the election, and Tinubu.
The SAN also argued that the motion seeking the Supreme Court to admit the fresh evidence is a constitutional issue and the time it was filed shouldn’t hinder it from being heard.
Tinubu’s counsel, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), objected to the admissibility of the depositions saying such depositions have to be adopted by the individual that deposed to it before it can be admitted as evidence before a court.
Olanipekun, however, asked the court to dismiss the claims of certificate forgery and lying on oath adding that the allegations are unsubstantiated and cannot enjoy any probate value until proven beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.
APC lawyer Akin Olujimi (SAN), held that the apex court should reject the motion as Atiku’s request was alien to the law, misconceived, and lacked merit.
In the same vein, INEC’s lawyer Abubakar Mahmoud, asked the court to dismiss the motion insisting that it was lacking in merit.
Also, the lead counsel to Obi and his party, Dr Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), prayed to the apex court to allow their appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower court.
After taking arguments from Uzoukwu, the apex court approved the matter for judgement.
Obi and the LP, speaking through Uzoukwu, SAN, urged the court to uphold their appeal and set aside the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC that dismissed their petition.
Uzoukwu insisted that there was no conflicts or dispute over the legality of the depositions.
The presiding Justice, Justice Okoro responding to Uche’s claims said “What do we do with this fresh evidence”, do you want us to prepare a charge, or “This matter is a criminal matter which requires calling of witnesses”.
He further held that the issue of conflicting documents from the same institution is a serious criminal act that ought to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In the same vein, the Apex Court reserved judgment in the joint appeal filed by Obi and the Labour Party challenging the victory of Tinubu at the February 25 presidential election.
