Evidence in Tinubu’s Chicago papers not statute barred, and he should be held accountable, Atiku insists
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has told the Supreme Court the evidence he submitted on Bola Tinubu’s certificate forgery is not statute barred, and should be admitted by the top court.
Atiku made the point in a reply on point of law he filed to counter objections Tinubu, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and the All Progressives Congress (APC) raised about the admissibility of documents released by Tinubu’s alma mater, Chicago State University (CSU), which show he forged his certificate.
Atiku argued the documents he is seeking the permission of the court to tender will establish his argument that Tinubu was not only ineligible to contest the election on February 25 but was also involved in certificate forgery.
The 32-page documents contain Tinubu’s academic records CSU handed to Atiku on October 3 on the orders of Judge Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, Illinois, United States.
The US court ordered CSU to release the documents despite Tinubu’s objection.
The three respondents at Nigeria’s Supreme Court – Tinubu, the INEC, and the APC – raised separate objections with the line the Supreme Court cannot admit the evidence at this stage of the case.
They argued the 180 days allowed by law for hearing of petitions against the outcome of the presidential election had since elapsed.
According to them, the top court, at this stage, lacks the jurisdiction to receive and decide on the fresh evidence since it was not presented within the prescribed 180 days.
Atiku, through his lawyers led by Chris Uche, SAN, countered that “there is no such constitutional limit of 180 days on the lower court to hear and determine a presidential election petition, such that can rob this honourable court to exercise its power in any manner whatsoever.
“The parties are agreed that the Constitution is the fons et origo and the grundnorm, and supersedes any other legislation,”
Besides, Uche stressed, while tribunals deal with election matters from Houses of Assembly, National Assembly and governorship ballots, the Constitution gives the jurisdiction to entertain disputes from presidential elections only to the Court of Appeal.
“Thereafter, the Constitution was intentional and deliberate in setting the 180 days limit only for Election Tribunals, and not for the Court of Appeal. On the other hand, when it came to appeals, the Constitution clearly and expressly extended same to the Court of Appeal.
“The Constitution clearly excluded Court of Appeal in the preceding subsection.”
Uche argued Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, shows the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that heard and dismissed his petition is not an election tribunal.
__________________________________________________________________
Related articles:
Atiku presses Tinubu to personally address his certificate forgery
Tinubu’s transcript shows why CSU didn’t issue him certificate, Atiku explains
CSU deposition shows why Tinubu forged his certificate
__________________________________________________________________
180 days limit applies only to tribunals
Uche contended the framers of the Constitution limit the application of the 180 days specifically to election tribunals by virtue of Section 285(6) of the Constitution, excluding the Court of Appeal, per Vanguard.
“On the other hand, when it came to the next Subsection, namely Section 285(7), they intentionally included and mentioned Court of Appeal.
“The trite maxim, my lords, is ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius,’ meaning the express mention of one thing in a statutory provision automatically excludes any other which otherwise would have been included by implication.
“Furthermore, when granting jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal to entertain presidential election petitions, the Constitution did not pretend that it was conferring the jurisdiction on a ‘tribunal’; it clearly gave the jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal.
“Thus, Section 239(1) of the Constitution specifically provides thus:-
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Court of Appeal shall, to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to whether – (a) any person has been validity elected to the office of President or Vice President under this Constitution.”
Uche also noted that while conferring on the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to entertain appeals arising from decisions in presidential election petitions, the Constitution limits itself to “Court of Appeal” and makes no mention of ‘tribunal’.
He cited Section 233 Subsections (1) and (2)(e)(i) of the Constitution which provide that:
“The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal.
“An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right in the following cases – (e) decisions on any question – (i) whether any person has been validly elected to the office of President or Vice President under this Constitution.”
He said it is based on the above facts that the PEPC itself administratively refused to be referred to as the “Presidential Election Petition Tribunal”, but the “Presidential Election Petition Court”.
Uche clarified “the case is not whether 2nd Respondent [Tinubu] attended Chicago State University, but whether he presented a forged certificate to the INEC.
“That at the trial, a National Youth Service Corps, NYSC, certificate with serial number 173807 presented by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent was equally tendered by the Appellants/Applicants at the trial as ‘EXHIBIT PBD 1A’ with the name Tinubu Bola Adekunle, which is annexed herewith as EXHIBIT-J.”