Supreme Court dismisses Atiku’s application for alleged forgery evidence against Tinubu

The Supreme Court has dismissed the application of the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, to introduce new evidence against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Justice John Okoro of the Supreme Court dismissed the application on Thursday while delivering judgment in the appeal filed by Atiku and the presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi, challenging the Court of Appeal verdict, which affirmed the victory of Tinubu in the February 25 election.

At the last proceeding on Monday, the apex court had reserved judgment, saying that a date would be communicated to the parties.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court spokesperson, Dr. Festus Akande, confirmed that the final judgment on the two appeals had been fixed for today.

Besides the faulting verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT), which affirmed Tinubu’s election, Atiku also filed for permission to tender a copy of the President’s academic records released by the Chicago State University (CSU).

Atiku said the records showed that Tinubu submitted a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The former vice president also sought to have a Washington D.C. court order the FBI to release documents on Tinubu’s $460.000 forfeiture case.

Justice Okoro on Thursday, however, dismissed Atiku’s application to introduce new evidence against Tinubu.

Justice Okoro said the appellants did not apply for an extension of time or apply to amend their appeal and introduce the issue of forgery and even if they did, it would not have been granted.

He also said that the deposition of CSU has no place in deciding the issues in the petition.

“Since the lower court (tribunal) no longer has jurisdiction, this supreme court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application,” Okoro said.

“It cannot be elongated or stretched beyond the required time, and cannot be extended, and the applicants did not ask for an extension of time, to amend their application.

“The lower court which is bound by the provision of section 285 Sub 6 of the state constitution when seeking to hear election petitions has lost its jurisdiction, so we cannot look into it.”