The Supreme Court has chosen to withhold its judgment in the appeal lodged by Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, contesting the tribunal’s decision that upheld President Bola Tinubu’s election win.
The seven-member panel, with John Inyang Okoro at the helm, concluded a thorough review of the arguments presented by all parties involved and declared that the date for delivering the judgment would be conveyed to them at a later time.
Notably, the panel included Uwani Aji, Mohammed Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Abubakar Tijjani, and Emmanuel Agim.
Livy Uzoukwu, the lead counsel for Peter Obi, urged the court to hear the appeal during the proceedings. Conversely, INEC’s representative, Mahmoud, argued that the appeal lacked merit and requested its dismissal.
Additionally, Tinubu’s legal counsel, Wole Olanipekun, and his APC counterpart, Akin Olujinmi, also strongly advocated for the dismissal of Obi’s appeal.
Consequently, the panel, led by Justice Okoro, announced, “This appeal is reserved for judgment until a date to be communicated to the parties.”
Peoples Democratic Party Seeks to Present New Evidence Against President Bola Tinubu
In a separate legal development, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), led by Atiku Abubakar, has approached the Supreme Court with a request to introduce fresh documents related to President Bola Tinubu.
Chris Uche, SAN, the lead counsel for Atiku Abubakar, emphasised the gravity and constitutional significance of the matter during Monday’s court proceedings.
He urged the court to accept their application and grant their request, stating, “The issue concerning Mr. Tinubu’s certificate is a weighty, grave, and constitutional one that the Supreme Court should consider.
“I implore the court to admit the new evidence of President Tinubu’s academic records from CSU, as presented by Atiku.”
However, INEC’s legal representative, Abubakar Mahmoud, called on the Supreme Court to reject Atiku’s application to introduce President Tinubu’s academic records. Wole Olanipekun, SAN, the lead counsel for Tinubu, argued that INEC should have been involved in the deposition proceedings in the United States, emphasising that the CSU depositions remained inactive until the deponent appeared in court to testify.
Meanwhile , the court has said there are unconnected dots in the letter sent by the Chicago State University (CSU) on President Bola Tinubu’s certificate.
Speaking at the hearing on Monday, Justice Okoro said criminal matters have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
“But in this case, there are two conflicting letters from the CSU – one authenticating the president’s certificate and another discrediting it. Which do we rely on?,” he asked.
