President Bola Tinubu has called upon the court to dismiss the application made by the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, who sought to submit documents from the Chicago State University in an ongoing legal battle.
Atiku had approached a United States court in the Northern District of Illinois to compel the university to release Tinubu’s academic records, asserting that it would substantiate his challenge to the outcome of the February 25th presidential election.
The U.S. court ruled in Atiku’s favor, granting access to President Tinubu’s academic credentials. Atiku subsequently sought permission from the Supreme Court to present these documents, alleging that they demonstrate the submission of a forged certificate by Tinubu to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
However, in a response filed by President Tinubu’s lead counsel, Wole Olanipekun, he labeled Atiku’s application as a blatant abuse of court processes. Tinubu stated, “It is safe to submit that this application is a crass abuse of the processes of this honorable court.”
Tinubu went on to argue that the Supreme Court should not consider the application since the matter was not presented before the tribunal within the constitutionally prescribed timeframe. He said, “For this honorable court to be able to give effect to Section 33 of the Supreme Court Act, which is the bedrock for Order 2 Rule 12(1), the jurisdiction of the lower court must be alive. Unfortunately for the appellants, however, this jurisdiction died as far back as September 17, 2023, upon the expiration of 180 days from the date of filing of the petition by the appellants.”
In a counter affidavit presented by the Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele, it was contended that Atiku and the PDP had not included any document or deposition from Chicago State University in their petition against Tinubu’s qualification. He pointed out, “The deposition on oath from the Chicago State University, which the appellants are now praying to the Supreme Court for permission to supply, is not one of the documents listed by the appellants as petitioners in their petition and list of documents accompanying the petition.”
Furthermore, Bamidele argued that the introduction of new allegations of academic certificate forgery and dual citizenship was improper since they were not previously pleaded, and the time for introducing new facts had lapsed based on statutory and constitutional requirements.