Former Nigerian Vice President and presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last elections, Atiku Abubakar, has applied to introduce fresh evidence against President Bola Tinubu at the Supreme Court.
Abubakar is challenging Tinubu’s victory in the February election and the election tribunal’s verdict that upheld the outcome.
Abubakar had previously alleged discrepancies and forgeries in Tinubu’s academic records.
He had requested the US court for the northern district of Illinois to compel Chicago State University (CSU) to release Tinubu’s academic records, a request that was granted.
Now, Abubakar is seeking to introduce these records at the apex court as part of his appeal against the tribunal’s judgment.
In a motion submitted by his counsel, Chris Uche, Abubakar asked the court to allow him to file fresh evidence in accordance with its rules.
The delay in obtaining this “evidence” is cited as the reason for filing the motion at this time.
The motion reads:
“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”.
“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.
“Also 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.
