Wherever the pendulum swings tomorrow, when the Supreme Court delivers judgements in the appeals filed by the presidential candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP),Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, his party, and Mr. Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP), one thing is clear: political permutations would be altered and the journey for what next would begin
Wherever the pendulum swings tomorrow, when the Supreme Court delivers judgements in the appeals filed by the presidential candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP),Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, his party, and Mr. Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP), one thing is clear: political permutations would be altered and the journey for what next would begin immediately.
Notice that judgement would be given on Thursday, came barely forty-eight hours after the Supreme Court Justices heard all the counsels in the separate cases. The Director of Information of the Supreme Court, Dr. Festus Akande, confirmed the information to journalists on Wednesday in Abuja. The Supreme Court had on Monday, reserved judgement after hearing the appeals.
Thursday’s judgement will lay to rest all the legal disputes over the 25 February presidential election in the country.
A seven-member panel of the court, led by Justice John Okoro had promised on Monday to contact counsels to the parties when their judgement is ready.
Justice Inyang Okoro
Other justices on the panel are Justices Uwani Abba-Aji, Mohammed Lawal Garba, Adamu Jauro, Ibrahim
Saulawa, Tijani Abubakar and Emmanuel Agim.
Alhaji Abubakar, Mr Obi and their parties had appealed against the 6 September 2023 judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) which affirmed the victory of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the last presidential election.
The five-member Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC) led by Justice Haruna Tsammani had on 6 September dismissed petitions filed by the presidential candidates for lacking in merit and affirmed the election of President Tinubu.
But displeased with the judgment, the duo approached the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn the judgement of the lower court in their favour.
Alhaji Abubakar’s notice of appeal had canvassed 35 grounds, contending that the PEPC erred in law.
On Monday,the court also took arguments from lead counsels to parties on the motion filed by the PDP to supply fresh evidence.
PDP’s lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche Senior Advocate of Nigeria ( SAN) urged the court to grant the motion and allow their appeal, grant the prayers sought and disqualify President Tinubu.
Chief Uche (SAN) informed the court of an interlocutory application seeking the leave of the court to present fresh evidence in the appeal.
The fresh evidence Alhaji Abubakar sought to tender are the academic records of President Tinubu, which were handed over to him by the Chicago State University (CSU) on October 2, 2023.
The 32-page document was released to the former Vice President on the orders of Judge Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, Illinois, United States of America.
The US court had ordered the CSU to release the said documents to Alhaji Abubakar despite President Tinubu’s objection because the court was convinced that it would help Alhaji Abubakar establish his allegation of forgery and lying on oath against President Tinubu.
However, one of the Justices on the panel, Justice Emmanuel Agim told Alhaji Abubakar’s lead counsel that the deposition which he sought to tender as evidence was done in the chamber of counsel to Alhaji Abubakar 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 has the legal authority to administer oath. We are dealing with a matter that touches on the national interest of this country”.
In his response, Chief Uche submitted that the legal system in the United States is different from that of English legal system which is practiced in Nigeria and confirmed that the depositions were made in the law chambers of Alhaji Abubakar’s American counsel, with representation by President Tinubu’s American counsel.
Chief Uche insisted that there was no conflicts or dispute over the legality of the depositions.
President Tinubu’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun raised an objection to the admissibility of the depositions saying such depositions has to be adopted by the individual that deposed to it before it can be admitted as evidence before a court.
In response,Chief Uche argued that such is not the practice in foreign proceedings and clarified that the depositions was not based on a court order to clarify the discrepancies observed in the communication by the Chicago State University.
The presiding Justice, Justice Okoro observed that the issue of conflicting documents from the same institution is a serious criminal act which ought to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
After hearing the appellants’ motion to admit fresh evidence and the objections by the respondents, the court directed parties to adopt their briefs of arguments on the substantive appeal and thereafter reserved judgment to a date that would be communicated to parties.
Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, Chief Olanipekun and Chief Akin Olujimi, all SAN, who represented INEC, President Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC), listed as 1st to 3rd respondents had, in their preliminary objections urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit and misconceived.
In the Mr. Obi and LP appeal, his lead counsel, Dr. Livy Uzoukwu,(SAN), urged the court to allow his client’s appeal.
He prayed the court to set aside the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja which affirmed President Tinubu’s election on 6 September.
On their part, lead counsels to the respondent’s – Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN (for the Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC)), Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN (for President Tinubu) and Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN (for the All Progressives Congress (APC)) urged the court to dismiss both the motion and appeal for lacking in merit.
Specifically, President Tinubu’s lead counsel, Chief Olanipekun,SAN described the appeals as lacking in merit .
Chief Olanipekun specifically told the court that the appeal filed by Atiku was abusive in nature and asked the court to dismiss the appeal.
Mr. Mahmoud Yakubu,SAN, lead counsel to INEC and Chief Olujimi similarly asked the panel to dismiss the appeals for want of merit.
