The candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Nigeria’s disputed February 25 presidential election, Atiku Abubakar, is not giving up on his quest to remove President Bola Tinubu from office, as he has applied for leave of the Supreme Court to file as fresh evidence to support his case.

In the motion he filed through his team of lawyers led by Chief Chris Uche (SAN), Atiku said the evidence he was seeking to tender before the apex court would further establish his allegation that Tinubu submitted forged documents to the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC) as his qualification to participate in the presidential election.

The former vice president opined that by submitting the forged documents, President Tinubu had “committed a twin offence of forgery and perjury, and therefore deserved to be sacked from office by the Supreme Court.”

Atiku specifically sought the leave of the court to tender Tinubu’s academic records which were handed over to him by the Chicago State University, (CSU), on October 2.

The motion states that the 32-paged document released by the CSU on the orders of Judge Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Illinois, United States of America, had proven that the certificates presented by the president were forged.

He further based his motion for leave to file fresh evidence against Tinubu on Order 2, Rule 12(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1985, Section 137(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as well as the inherent jurisdiction of the apex court as encapsulated in section 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution.

The PDP flagbearer prayed the court for an order granting him leave:

“To produce and for the court to receive fresh and additional evidence by way of deposition on oath from the Chicago State University for use in this appeal to wit: the certified discovery deposition made by Caleb Westberg on behalf of Chicago State University on October 3, 2023, disclaiming the certificate presented by the 2nd respondent, Bola Ahmed Tinubu to the Independent National Electoral Commission.”

He also prayed the apex court to:

“Receive the said deposition in evidence as exhibit in the resolution of this appeal and to further make order or orders the apex court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the case.

“The deposition is relevant to this matter, having confirmed that the certificate presented by the 2nd Respondent to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) did not emanate from Chicago State University, and that whoever issued the certificate presented by the 2nd Respondent, did not have the authority of the Chicago State University, and that the 2nd Respondent never applied for any replacement certificate nor was he issued any replacement certificate by the Chicago State University,” the motion reads.

“The deposition which is on oath and deposed to in the presence of the 2nd Respondent’s Attorney is credible and believable, and ought to be believed.

“The deposition is clear and unambiguous, and no further evidence is needed to be adduced on it. The evidence is such that could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial, as the deposition required the commencement of the suit in the United States of America before receiving same. It was not possible to obtain the said evidence before the trial at the Court.

“The deposition was made on October 03, 2023 after the conclusion of trial at the Court below, and was not available to be tendered at the trial,” Atiku averred.

He added that the presentation of a forged certificate to INEC by a candidate for election to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was a weighty constitutional matter, requiring consideration by the Courts as custodians of the Constitution.

Atiku’s legal team said they would, during the hearing at the Supreme Court, rely on the Record of Appeal already transmitted.

“My Lords, we most humbly adopt the facts as presented in the supporting affidavit, and same will be referred to in the course of the argument.

“Order 2 Rule 12 (7), (2) and (3) of the Supreme Court Rules provide as follows:

(1) A party who wishes the Court to receive the evidence of witnesses (whether they were or were not called at the trial) or to order the production of any document, exhibit or other thing connected with the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, shall apply for leave on notice of motion prior to the date set down for the hearing of the appeal.

“The application shall be supported by affidavit of the facts on which the party relies for making it and of the nature of the evidence or the document concerned.

“The evidence required to establish that the certificate presented by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent in support of his qualification to contest the said election is the deposition from the Chicago State University, which deposition did not become available until after the determination of the case by the lower Court. The said evidence is now available, and forwarded to this Honourable Court.

“We submit that the Appellants/Applicants have successfully explained the delay and difficulties in obtaining the said evidence earlier than now, and all the necessary steps taken to obtain the evidence and to present same to this Honourable Court.”