Tinubu’s Certificate Scandal: Prove Alleged Forgery Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Supreme Court Tells Atiku

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has commenced hearing the appeals filed by Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and Peter Obi, the candidate of the Labour Party (LP), challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The crux of the appeals is the allegation that Tinubu forged his academic certificate from Chicago State University (CSU) in the United States and was therefore not eligible to contest the February presidential election.

Atiku had obtained a court order from an Illinois district court to compel CSU to release Tinubu’s academic records, which he claimed were falsified. He alleged that Tinubu submitted a fake diploma of Bachelor of Science in Business Administration awarded in 1979 to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

He requested copies of any diploma issued by CSU in 1979, Tinubu’s diploma, and diplomas with similar font, seal, signatures, and wording awarded to other students in 1979.

Tinubu’s lawyers opposed Atiku’s application, citing privacy issues. They agreed that only the certificate should be released and not other confidential records.

However, the US court granted Atiku’s request and ordered CSU to release Tinubu’s academic records. Atiku then filed them as fresh evidence in support of his appeals at the Supreme Court.

Atiku’s lead counsel, Chris Uche, SAN, urged the apex court to admit the fresh evidence and nullify Tinubu’s victory. He said that Tinubu’s certificate issue was a weighty, grave, and constitutional matter that required the court’s attention.

He said, “The Supreme Court should admit the fresh evidence of President Tinubu’s academic records from CSU presented by Atiku. The court should examine Tinubu’s records and reach a decision devoid of technicality. As a policy court, the court has a duty to look at it and should side-step technicalities.”

He also said that the issue of 180 days should not limit the court’s jurisdiction.

However, Justice John Okoro, who chairs the Supreme Court panel, said that the matter was criminal in nature and had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He noted that there were two conflicting letters from CSU: one verifying Tinubu’s certificate and another discrediting it.

He said, “This is a criminal matter that has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. There are two conflicting letters from the CSU: one verifying the president’s certificate and another discrediting it.”

Another panel member, Justice Emmanuel Agim, observed that the deposition Atiku sought to tender as evidence was done in Atiku’s lawyer’s office and not in the courtroom. He questioned the legality and authenticity of the deposition.

He said, “I expected the college to write disclaiming the documents in dispute. Does a stenographer have the legal authority to administer oaths? We are dealing with a matter that touches on national interest.”

But Uche argued that the deposition was done in the presence of Tinubu’s US lawyers and that there was no dispute about it.

The counsel to APC, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, told the court that Atiku should not be allowed to bring in documents not presented at the tribunal. He said that it was against the rules of evidence and procedure.

He said, “You cannot smuggle in a document into the Supreme Court without first tendering it at the trial court. The appeal is misconceived and lacks merit. It should be outright dismissed”.

In his response to Uche’s arguments, the lawyer to the President, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, similarly urged the court not to admit the fresh documents, adding that INEC was not a party to it.

 “The depositions are not admissible in the USA. It is akin to deposition which we have in Nigeria. The deposition was not done in court and INEC was not a party to it. The deposition must be adopted by the individual that deposed to it before it can be admitted as evidence before the court,“ he reasoned.

He also said the 180 days stipulated for the conclusion of election petition cases “is like a rock of Gibraltar, it cannot be moved.’’

INEC’s lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud, asked the court to interpret section 285 of the constitution and also urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

The court which had Uwani Aji, Mohammed Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Abubakar Tijjani, as other panel members, however, reserved judgment in the matter.

The court also reserved judgment in the appeal filed by the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi, against the tribunal’s judgment affirming Tinubu’s election.

Obi and the LP, through their lawyers led by Dr. Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, urged the court to uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court that dismissed their petition.

The INEC, Tinubu, and the APC had prayed the court to dismiss the appeal for want of merit.

The panel said it would communicate the judgment date to all the parties.

Obi, who came third in the election, had in his 51 grounds of appeal, maintained that the PEPC panel erred in law and thereby reached a wrong conclusion when it dismissed his petition.

He alleged that the panel wrongly evaluated the proof of evidence he adduced before it and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice when it held that he did not specify polling units where irregularities occurred during the election.

Obi and the LP further faulted the PEPC for dismissing their case on the premise that they did not specify the figures of votes or scores that were allegedly suppressed or inflated in favour of President Tinubu and the APC.

The seven-man panel led by Okoro after listening to the submissions of the parties involved in the matter said the judgment date would be communicated to them.

The panel led by Okoro said, “This appeal is reserved for judgment until a date to be communicated to the parties.”

The apex court struck out the appeal by the Allied Peoples Movement seeking to nullify the election of the President.

The party had claimed that the placeholder nominated by the president, Ibrahim Masari, was not replaced within 14 days as stipulated by section 33 of the Electoral Act.

The lead counsel for the party, Chukwuma -Machukwu Ume argued that their appeal was not premised on double nomination which the lower court ruled on, insisting that Vice President Kashim Shettima was illegally nominated.

But Okoro asked him if the APM had anything to gain from the matter.

He said, “What will you gain if you win this appeal? There are other appeals that are asking for something substantial. There is nothing to gain but to give us work to do. You are not asking us to put your candidate there as president.”

The APM lawyer applied to withdraw his appeal.

The APC, INEC, Ibrahim Massari, and Tinubu’s counsels did not object.

“Having been withdrawn, the appeal is hereby struck out,” Okoro said.

Newsflash Nigeria is an online newspaper that is developed and written exclusively for Nigerians. It’s packed with up-to-the-minute Local and National Economy News, Share & Capital Market, Health, Sports, Education, Technology, Business and Opinions.

To make further advert enquiries or place an order, please contact us at [email protected] and +2348053316946 and WhatsApp number 08033546732