Atiku’s Relentless Pursuit For Recently Found Evidence....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

For Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), there is nothing he desires more than to remove President Bola Ahmed Tinubu from office, using any means necessary. His strong desire to attain this lofty position led him on a journey to the United States (US) in search of evidence, even after the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC) had already concluded its proceedings and reserved judgment. Despite the PEPC’s verdict on September 6, which dismissed his case for lack of merit, Atiku persisted in his quest for what he believes is crucial evidence that could convince the Supreme Court to reopen the case.

Read Also K1 Band’s UK Performance Ends In Mystery As Two Go Missing In The United Kingdom

It’s important to note that the Supreme Court does not serve as the initial court for such matters. It only adjudicates on disputes between individuals and organizations after cases have gone through lower and appellate courts. Atiku’s case does not appear to possess any unique attributes that would prompt the Supreme Court to order a retrial of his petition against Tinubu’s election. During the PEPC proceedings, Atiku challenged the President’s election on four grounds, which are as follows:

1. The election of the second respondent (Tinubu) is invalid due to non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
2. The election of the second respondent is invalid due to corrupt practices.
3. The second respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast in the election.
4. The second respondent was not qualified to contest the election at the time.

Interestingly, Atiku provided specific details for the first three aspects of his petition but failed to do so for the fourth. In election cases, petitioners are expected to be transparent and not ambush the other party with new information later in the process. This practice is known as frontloading, ensuring that all relevant information is presented upfront. Election cases have unique rules and practices that must be followed, and any deviation from these rules can harm the petitioner’s case.

Atiku’s failure to provide evidence of Tinubu’s non-qualification in his initial petition weakened his case. He then attempted to surprise the President and other respondents by presenting a witness, Mike Enahoro-Ebah, who had previously attempted to prevent Tinubu from contesting the February 25 election. Ebah’s case had been dismissed by an Abuja Federal High Court several months before the election. He became Atiku’s star witness at the tribunal.

Ebah’s testimony mainly revolved around the President allegedly identifying himself as a female when seeking admission to Chicago State University (CSU) in 1977. He claimed that the President had sent a transcript from South West College in the US under the name “Bola Adekunle Tinubu” and identified himself as female. However, CSU refuted Ebah’s claim in a deposition by its Registrar, Caleb Westberg. According to Westberg’s deposition, the university’s records identified Tinubu as male, and his admission letter included the title “Mr.”

Tinubu’s lawyers swiftly moved to have the non-qualification ground struck out, as Atiku had failed to provide particulars and facts. Atiku insisted on retaining this ground and introduced new documents to support his claims, including allegations of the President’s alleged conviction in the US and dual citizenship. However, the PEPC upheld the respondent’s preliminary objection, stating that Atiku’s attempt to introduce fresh particulars to support Tinubu’s non-qualification was an attempt to modify the petition, which contravened the Electoral Act. The tribunal also noted that Atiku’s petition lacked clarity regarding what constituted Tinubu’s non-qualification, as there are multiple qualifications and disqualification grounds outlined in the constitution.

Consequently, the tribunal struck out two witness statements and accompanying documents related to Ebah’s testimony, all of which were based on the new facts introduced in the reply.

Atiku has now appealed the PEPC’s decision to the Supreme Court, with 35 grounds of appeal. However, his pursuit of what he calls “after-discovered evidence” may face challenges, as it appears to resemble the evidence he attempted to present during the PEPC proceedings, which was rejected. The admissibility of new evidence on appeal is limited, and it must meet specific criteria, including being unavailable during the lower court proceedings.

In addition, Atiku’s recent claims regarding the President’s educational records from CSU have been met with skepticism, as the university has confirmed the authenticity of the President’s diploma. The discrepancies in the diploma and certified copy were attributed to administrative factors, not any wrongdoing on the President’s part.

As Atiku’s case progresses to the Supreme Court, the court will likely base its decision on the record of proceedings and established legal principles rather than extraneous factors. While Atiku’s pursuit of legal remedies is within his rights as a democrat, some observers have criticized his statements as incendiary and questioned his motivations, given his history in Nigerian politics.