BREAKING: Obi’s appeal against Tinubu, the Supreme Court has reserved judgement

The Labour Party’s Peter Obi appealed the tribunal’s decision upholding President Bola Tinubu’s election, and the Supreme Court has deferred judgement in that case.

The seven-member panel, directed by John Inyang Okoro, stated that the parties concerned in the case would be informed of the judgement date after hearing their arguments.

Uwani Aji, Mohammed Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Abubakar Tijjani, and Emmanuel Agim are additional panellists.

Livy Uzoukwu, the primary attorney for Obi, echoed his arguments and urged the court to hear the appeal.

In his arguments, Mahmoud, an attorney for INEC, urged the court to reject the appeal because it lacked merit.

Wole Olanipekun, the attorney for Tinubu, and Akin Olujinmi, the attorney for the APC, adopted their addresses to ask the court to reject Obi’s appeal.

READ ALSO: Atiku’s challenge against Tinubu’s election is pending ruling at the Supreme Court

The panel, which was presided over by Okoro, declared: “This appeal is reserved for judgement until a date to be communicated to the parties.”

Earlier, Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party urged the Supreme Court to accept new evidence against President Bola Tinubu.

His lead attorney, Chris Uche, SAN, reportedly highlighted the situation as a serious constitutional issue in court on Monday.

He requested that the application be accepted and their desire be granted.

He stated, “The Supreme Court should accept that the problem regarding Mr. Tinubu’s certificate is one that is significant, serious, and constitutional. I implore the court to accept the new proof of President Tinubu’s CSU academic transcripts that Atiku has provided.

The Supreme Court must review Mr. Tinubu’s legal history and make a ruling free of technicalities.

Abubakar Mahmoud, an attorney for INEC, requested the Supreme Court to reject Atiku’s request to produce Tinubu’s academic credentials.

Wole Olanipekun, SAN, the main attorney for Tinubu, argued that INEC ought to have been a party to the deposition procedures in the US because the CSU depositions are inactive until the deponent appears in court and testifies.