BREAKING: Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On Atiku’s Appeal Against Tinubu

 

Certificate Forgery Motion, Appeal Against Judgement Of PEPC: Supreme Court Reserves Judgement On Atiku's Appeal Against Tinubu. 

....Says Date Of Judgement To Be Communicated.

The Supreme Court has reserved judgement in Atiku Abubakar’s appeal challenging the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja which upheld President Bola Tinubu’s election.

A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court led by John Okoro adjourned the case for judgement after taking the arguments of lawyers to parties in the suit.

The court which sat at 9:04am had the following Appearances For The Appellants. 

Chief Chris Uche , SAN

Eyitayo Jegede, SAN

Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN

Nella Andem-Ewa Rabana, SAN

Ahmed T. Uwais, ESQ

While the respondent had, 

A. B. Mahmoud, SAN led the team for the 1st Respondent.

Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN led the team for the 2nd Respondent.

Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN led the team for the 3rd Respondent.

Court Proceedings As Gotten 

Court Proceeding :

Court: Chief Olanipekun, we’ll take the motion first and then the appeal

WO: as your Lordship pleases

CU SAN: our motion is dated 5th October, 2023 and filed on 6th October, 2023. We pray for 5 minutes of adumbration after adoption of the processes, otherwise we will adopt. We are praying for an order/leave to present fresh evidence on appeal pursuant to the Order of this Hon Court. Our application is supported and predicated upon 20 grounds and accompanied by affidavit of 20 paragraphs, there is also a written address accompanying the application. Upon the receipt of Counter Affidavits and Written Addresses from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents responsibly, we filed a Further Affidavits of 20 paragraphs. 

We also filed a reply on points of law on the same 18th October, 2023 to the various respondents. My Lords, we most humbly adopt and rely on all these processes in urging your Noble Lordships to grant our application. 

It is our contention that the issue involved is a weighty grave and constitutional and the SC being a custodian of the Constitution admit the evidence of the Petitioners to determine this issue before the Court. The opposition on the other ground is on two grounds: this matter was not properly pleaded and it is coming late. We have explained our reasons in the affidavit

Court: I have read your motion and the supporting documents and I’ll like to address some issues concerning the documents in question

ABM: we have a Counter Affidavit of 10 paragraphs and a written address filed in support and filed on the 12th of October, we seek to rely on all the paragraphs of the affidavit and also crave the indulgence of the Court to uphold our application. In response to the issue of S.285 of the Constitution, this Section established all election tribunals and the Court of Appeal in my view

WO: we filed a Counter Affidavit of 20 paragraphs, we also filed a written address and relying on same and with your Lordship’s permission we will like to correct the typographical error of applicable to read “inapplicable authorities”. May I adopt the address and the processes filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent in urging your Lordships to deny this unusual application. Paras 4.13, 4.15, 4.16 and 4.17, these depositions are not admissible under the US Court Rules, they also called it depositions, depositions are usually done in advance and are usually dormant until the deponents depose to them. Paras 1 of the First Schedule, defines “Tribunal”

AO: on behalf of the 3rd respondent, we filed a CA on 12th October and accompanying it is our written address. We humbly rely on the Counter Affidavit and urging the Lordships to dismiss outright this application for lacking in merit and for being misconceived. We will be adopting the submission of other respondents, and I will only comment on Paras 1.9 of our Written Address. There must be an order by the court before such foreign document can be produced and brought before the court.

CU: with respect to the procedure in the USA regarding the position, we have submitted that it is not correct that such a deposition cannot be used in any proceedings. We want to comment your Lordship to what your lordships did in Uzodimma’s case. The procedure under Order 20 Rule 6 does not apply at all, the issue did not require any written application from our courts to their foreign court before a deposition is gotten. 

WO: we filed a Motion on Notice on 7th October, 2023 supported by an affidavit of 7 paragraphs and a written address filed the same day praying for striking out some grounds of the appeal. We urge your Lordships to uphold our application

CU: In opposition, we filed a counter affidavit of 18th October, 2023 and accompanied it with a written address of the same day, we most humbly adopt and rely on these processes in urging your lordships to dismiss this motion which with all due respect is unnecessary

WO: we filed a reply on points of law on the 19th October, 2023.

CU: we are ready to go straight in the appeal.

For the appellants, we filed our BOA on 2nd October, 2023 and our List of Authorities. We filed 3 reply briefs to the respondents respectively, filed on 12th October as well as our List of Authorities in respect of the various replies. We respectfully urge your Lordships to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and in the alternative, nullify the election.

ABM: on behalf of the 1st respondent, our brief is dated 6th and filed on the 7th of October, we also filed our list of authorities

CU: on behalf of the 2nd respondent, we filed our brief on the 7th of October, 2023 and our list of authorities was filed on the 20th October, 2023. We hereby adopt and humbly urge the court to dismiss this appeal.

AO: on behalf of the 3rd respondent, we filed the respondent’s brief on 7th of October, 2023 and we humbly rely on the brief in urging your Lordship to dismiss this appeal for lacking in merit. 

Mr Okoro said a date would be communicated to lawyers when the judgement is ready.