Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last elections, has applied to file fresh evidence against President Bola Tinubu at the supreme court.
Abubakar is challenging Tinubu’s victory at the February poll and the verdict of the election tribunal upholding the outcome of the vote.
Abubakar had alleged that Tinubu’s academic records are fraught with discrepancies and forgeries.
His request for the US court for the northern district of Illinois to compel Chicago State University (CSU) to release Tinubu’s academic records has since been granted.
Abubakar is now seeking to introduce these records at the apex court after appealing the judgment of the tribunal.
In a motion marked SC/CV/935/2023 and submitted by Chris Uche, counsel to the PDP candidate, Abubakar asked the court to allow him file fresh evidence in line with order 2, rule 12 of its rules.
The former vice-president said the processes and how long it took him to secure the “evidence” is the reason he is filing the motion now.
“Given the strict privacy laws in the jurisdiction of Chicago State University, the request for the release of the academic records and certificate issued to the 2nd Respondent could not be granted without an order of court and for the purpose of use in pending court proceedings,” the motion reads.
“On September 19, 2023, the Court issued an order granting the application and thereafter, the 2nd Respondent applied for an emergency stay of the Court Order, claiming that he would suffer irreparable damage and injury if his educational records were released: which order of stay was granted.
“On September 30, 2023, the Court overruled the 2nd Respondent’s objections and ordered Chicago State University to produce the documents on October 2, 2023, and to produce a witness for deposition on October 3, 2023.
“On October 2, 2023, Chicago State University produced the documents pursuant to the Court’s Order.
“On October 3, 2023, also pursuant to the Court’s Order, Chicago State University provided a witness to give deposition testimony, in which deposition, Chicago State University disclaimed ownership and authorship of the document that the 2nd Respondent presented to INEC, purporting to be ‘Chicago State University certificate’ and also disclaimed issuing any replacement certificate to him.
“The deposition was not in existence or available at the time of filing the petition.
“The deposition sought to be adduced is, along with its accompanying documents, such as would have important effect in the resolution of this appeal.”
No date has been fixed for hearing of the motion.
Source: Top Stories
