The Supreme Court has encountered conflicting letters from Chicago State University (CSU) regarding President Bola Tinubu’s certificate. Justice John Okoro, who leads the 7-member panel overseeing the application filed by Atiku Abubakar, the Presidential Candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), against President Tinubu’s victory, made this revelation on Monday.
Following the declaration of President Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the February election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), his opponents took the matter to court. The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal had previously dismissed the appeals of Atiku and Peter Obi of the Labour Party. However, both Atiku and Peter Obi proceeded to the Supreme Court, with Atiku seeking to introduce additional evidence related to the alleged forgery of President Tinubu’s documents.
Atiku’s application aimed to present evidence regarding President Tinubu’s academic records from Chicago State University, which he claimed was necessary to substantiate his allegation that the president had submitted forged documents to INEC. However, by the time the documents were released, the 180-day statutory period within which an election petition should be filed and determined had expired.
Atiku requested the court’s permission to submit this fresh evidence, citing the grave constitutional issue of presenting forged documents by a candidate running for the highest office in the land. President Tinubu objected, arguing that granting such a request would constitute an abuse of the court process.
In response to President Tinubu’s objections, Atiku argued that issues of merit should not be decided or pronounced upon at the interlocutory stage. He also emphasized that the presentation of a forged certificate should disqualify a candidate permanently, regardless of when it was presented.
Speaking during the hearing on Monday, Justice Okoro raised the issue of conflicting letters from CSU regarding President Tinubu’s certificate. He questioned which of these letters the court should rely on, as one authenticated the president’s certificate, while the other discredited it. The court now faces the challenging task of resolving this conflicting evidence in this intricate legal matter.*
