The apex court in Nigeria, Supreme Court, constituted as the Presidential Election Petition Court(PEPC) today has reserved judgment in the appeal filed by the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi, and Peoples’Democratic Candidate (PDP) presidential candidate, Abubakar Atiku, against the decision of the Court of Appeal tribunal’s judgment affirming President Bola Tinubu’s election as Nigeria’s president.
The seven-man panel led by John Inyang Okoro after listening to the submissions of the parties involved in the matter said the judgment date would be communicated to all parties.
Other members of the panel are Uwani Aji, Mohammed Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Abubakar Tijjani, and Emmanuel Agim.
The court which commenced sitting at exactly 9.04 am heard the adoption of the lawyer for the parties before them.
Adopting his addresses, Obi’s lead counsel, Livy Uzoukwu urged the court to hear the appeal.
INEC lawyer, Mahmoud, while making his submissions urged the court to dismiss the appeal, adding that it lacked merit.
Adopting their addresses, Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun, and his APC counterpart, Akin Olujinmi urged the court to dismiss Obi’s appeal.
The panel led by Justice Okoro said, “This appeal is reserved for judgment until a date to be communicated to the parties.”
Earlier, the Peoples Democratic Party, Atiku Abubakar, urged the Supreme Court to admit fresh documents against President Bola Tinubu.
Speaking at the court, his lead counsel, Chris Uche, SAN, described the matter as a grave and constitutional matter.
He urged the court to adopt the application and grant their request.
Presenting his argument, he said, “The issue involving Mr Tinubu’s certificate is a weighty, grave, and constitutional one, which the Supreme Court should admit. I urge the court to admit the fresh evidence of President Tinubu’s academic records from CSU presented by Atiku.
The Supreme Court must take a look at Mr Tinubu’s records and reach a decision devoid of technicality.
INEC lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud, urged the Supreme Court to dismiss Atiku’s application seeking to present Tinubu’s academic records.
Tinubu’s lead counsel, Wole Olanipekun, SAN argued that INEC should have been a party at the deposition proceedings in the US, noting that the CSU depositions are dormant until the deponent comes to court and testify.
Today’s record of proceedings from the Supreme Court:
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION COURT
MONDAY, 23RD OCTOBER, 2023
HEARING
Court sat at 9:04am.
LIST OF APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANTS
CHIEF CHRIS UCHE, SAN 2. EYITAYO JEGEDE, SAN
PROF MIKE OZEKHOME, SAN
NELLA ANDEM-EWA RABANA, SAN
AHMED T. UWAIS, ESQ
LIST OF APPEARANCES FOR THE RESPONDENTS
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
CU SAN: The Appeal is ripe for hearing and we are ready to proceed. We also have an interlocutory application for motion, given the fact that there are quite a number of processes filed by all parties in this matter, for ease of guidance, we have prepared a schedule of processes and we have obliged our brothers with copies of the processes.
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 an affidavit of 20 paragraphs, there is also a written address accompanying the application. Upon the r Counter Affidavits and Written Addresses from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Re 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 admits 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 the same and with your Lordship’s permission we would like to correct the typographical error 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 documents 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 on 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 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.
Court: the date of judgment will be communicated at a later time.
