Today (Monday), the Supreme Court is set to begin hearing appeals lodged by Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Mr. Peter Obi of the Labour Party, and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM). These appeals aim to challenge the victory of President Bola Tinubu from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
Following the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal’s confirmation of Tinubu’s victory, Atiku, Obi, and the APM individually filed appeals at the Supreme Court to invalidate the results of the presidential election that took place on February 25.
The Supreme Court officially scheduled the hearing date by sending notices to all involved parties last Thursday.
Both Atiku and Obi disagreed with the tribunal’s decision and subsequently filed appeals at the Supreme Court. Atiku, the PDP candidate, also sought permission to present a copy of Tinubu’s academic records from the Chicago State University, USA. Atiku argued that these records demonstrated that Tinubu had submitted a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Additionally, Atiku is trying to obtain a court order from Washington, D.C. to compel the FBI to release documents pertaining to President Tinubu’s $460,000 forfeiture case.
Recalling the situation, it’s important to note that Tinubu had, on October 13, urged the Supreme Court to disregard the academic records from Chicago State University attached by Atiku Abubakar. President Tinubu argued that this discovery was not part of the official record or judgment of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal, and he requested that the apex court not admit it.
Furthermore, President Tinubu contended that Atiku had a pattern of filing a petition first and then searching for evidence afterward, which was evident in his appeal against the tribunal’s judgment. In response to Atiku’s appeal, filed by his legal team led by Wole Olanipekun, SAN, the President maintained that the claim of discrepancies in his credentials was fabricated by the PDP candidate.
Reports suggest that there is uncertainty surrounding whether the Supreme Court will admit this new evidence. However, a legal practitioner in Rivers State, Mathew Abakpa, stated that it is legally possible for the Supreme Court to accept the fresh evidence. Nonetheless, how the Supreme Court will handle this new evidence remains a separate matter.