The Nigerian Supreme Court has signaled the reservation of judgment in the appeal filed by Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
The appeal is contesting the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Court, which upheld President Bola Tinubu’s victory in the presidential election.
The ruling came on Monday after both parties’ legal representatives presented their final submissions and adopted their briefs of argument.
Atiku’s Counsel Pushes for Fresh Evidence
During the court proceedings, Atiku’s lead counsel, Chris Uche, SAN, emphasized the significance of the matter as a grave constitutional issue.
He urged the court to admit the fresh evidence of President Tinubu’s academic records from CSU, emphasizing that the matter is weighty and should be considered without technicality.
Responses from INEC and Tinubu’s Legal Teams
Abubakar Mahmoud, representing INEC, urged the Supreme Court to dismiss Atiku’s application seeking to present Tinubu’s academic records.
On the other hand, Tinubu’s lead counsel, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, argued that INEC should have been part of the deposition proceedings in the US and questioned the validity of the CSU depositions until the deponent testifies in court.
He stressed that Atiku cannot introduce fresh evidence at the Supreme Court.
Withdrawal of Allied Peoples Movement (APM) Appeal
The court also addressed the appeal filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM). After the appellant’s lawyer, Chukwuma Majukwu Umeh, requested to withdraw the appeal, the respondents did not oppose this move.
Consequently, the apex court dismissed the APM’s appeal.
Read Also : Lawyer sues Tinubu over EFCC chair appointment
Panel Emphasizes Lack of Utility in Continuing the Case
The seven-member panel, led by Justice John Okoro, emphasized the lack of utility in pursuing the appeal.
Lack of utility means; The absence of practical benefit or value in pursuing a particular course of action.
In view that the Supreme Court had already addressed a similar issue in the case of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) v. INEC and others.
In that previous ruling, the court determined that Shettima’s nomination was valid, reinforcing the frivolous nature of the APM’s appeal.
