The Supreme Court has declared that there exist contradictory communications from Chicago State University (CSU) concerning President Bola Tinubu’s certificate.
During the morning hearing of the appeal submitted by Atiku Abubakar of the PDP, Justice John Okoro, the Chairman of the 7-member panel, stated that the court had two conflicting letters in its possession.
On September 6, 2023, the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal dismissed the appeals of Atiku and Peter Obi from the Labour Party. Subsequently, both individuals took their cases to the highest court, with Atiku requesting permission to submit additional evidence against Tinubu related to alleged forgery.
Atiku had been trying to obtain Tinubu’s academic records from Chicago State University to support his claim that the president had submitted forged documents to INEC.
Nevertheless, once the documents were finally released, the 180-day statutory period, within which an election petition should be filed and resolved, had already passed.
Atiku, however, urged the court to allow his appeal to submit new evidence, citing the critical nature of the issue. In contrast, Tinubu opposed this, contending that granting such a request would be an abuse of the court process.
Atiku based his request on the premise that the submission of forged documents by any candidate, especially one vying for the highest office in the country, represents a significant constitutional matter that should not be condoned.
On the other hand, President Tinubu argued that this issue falls under pre-election matters, among other reasons, and therefore, he requested the court to reject the application.
Disagreeing with Tinubu’s perspective, Atiku asserted that issues of merit should not be determined or pronounced upon during the interlocutory stage. Additionally, Atiku emphasized that the presentation of a forged certificate permanently disqualifies a candidate, regardless of when it was presented.
Expressing his disagreement with Tinubu, Atiku contended that matters of substance should not be decided or announced during the preliminary stage.
He also emphasized that presenting a counterfeit certificate result in the permanent disqualification of a candidate, regardless of the timing of its presentation.
During the morning session of the appeal hearing, Justice Okoro stated that criminal cases must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
He questioned, “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?”