Determined to remove President Bola Tinubu from office, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), has taken a decisive step in his pursuit. Atiku, along with his legal team led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, has applied to the Supreme Court for permission to introduce what he terms “fresh evidence” into the ongoing legal battle.
In his motion, Atiku contends that this new evidence is crucial in substantiating his claim that President Tinubu, a member of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), submitted forged documents to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to secure his eligibility for the presidential election that took place on February 25. According to Atiku, these documents are related to Tinubu’s academic records, which he alleges were obtained fraudulently.
The motion filed by Atiku’s legal team argues that this evidence, sourced from Chicago State University and released under the orders of Judge Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, United States, is vital to the case. Atiku asserts that President Tinubu’s actions constitute a grave offense, involving both forgery and perjury, and therefore warrant his removal from office by the Supreme Court.
Atiku’s application is grounded in legal provisions, citing Order 2, Rule 12(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1985, Section 137(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the inherent jurisdiction of the apex court as encapsulated in section 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution. He argues that the evidence he seeks to present could not have been obtained earlier and that it would significantly impact the outcome of the case.
Furthermore, Atiku’s legal team highlights the significance of this case, emphasizing that the alleged presentation of a forged certificate to INEC by a candidate for the presidency is a matter of great constitutional importance. They stress that the Supreme Court has a duty to consider such weighty issues and ensure that justice is served in accordance with the law.
Despite the meticulous preparation of the application, the Supreme Court has not yet announced a date for the hearing, leaving both parties in anticipation of the court’s decision on this pivotal matter.
