In particular, Atiku asked the court for permission to present Tinubu’s academic records, which he claimed were sent to him by Chicago State University on October 2, 2023.
Atiku Abubakar, the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) nominee for president, has asked the Supreme Court for permission to present what he calls new evidence.
Atiku claimed in a motion he filed through his legal team that the proof he intends to present to the Supreme Court would support his claim that President Bola Tinubu 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 committed the crimes of forgery and perjury by what he did, and as a result, the Supreme Court should have removed him from office.
In particular, Atiku asked the court for permission to present Tinubu’s academic records, which he claimed were given to him by Chicago State University (CSU) on October 2, 2023.
On the direction of Judge Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, Illinois, United States of America, the 32-page document, according to the motion, was made public by the CSU.
Atiku Abubakar, a PDP presidential contender, will appear before the Presidential Elections Petitions Tribunal in Abuja on May 11, 2023, for a preliminary hearing.
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, as well as the supreme court’s inherent power as outlined in Section 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution.
Atiku’s legal team finished the filing procedure on Friday night, even though the application was dated October 5.
READ ALSO: Atiku requests permission from the Supreme Court to present new evidence against Tinubu
The PDP candidate for president essentially asked the court for an order granting him permission to “produce and for the court to receive fresh and additional evidence by way of deposition on oath from the 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 Nation.”
In addition, he requested that the top court “receive the said deposition in evidence as exhibit in the resolution of this appeal” and issue whatever other orders it may see appropriate given the facts of the case.
The application was supported by 20 grounds, one of which asserted that the deposition sought to be introduced and the papers it was to be accompanied by “would have important effect in the resolution of this appeal.”
The deposition is pertinent to this matter because it established that the certificate presented by the second respondent to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) did not come from Chicago State University, that whoever issued the certificate did not have the authority of Chicago State University, and that the second respondent never requested a replacement certificate or was given one by the institution.
“The deposition, which was taken under oath and in front of the attorney for the second respondent, is trustworthy and believable and should be trusted.
“The deposition is clear and unambiguous, and no additional supporting evidence is required,” the court ruled.
“The evidence is such that it could not have been secured for use at the trial with due diligence, as the deposition necessitated that the lawsuit be filed in the United States of America before getting same. The aforementioned evidence could not be obtained prior to the trial before the lower court.
“The deposition was made on October 3, 2023, after the conclusion of trial at the Court below, and was not available to be tendered at the trial,” Atiku said.
In his argument, he claims that “the presentation of a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission by a candidate for election to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
The Supreme Court has yet to fix a date for the motion to be heard.
