The Supreme Court cannot at this stage admit the fresh evidence sought to be tendered by Atiku Abubakar in his appeal challenging the outcome of the February 25 poll, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has argued.
Also, Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele, noted that Atiku and the PDP never pleaded before the PEPC any document or deposition from the CSU in support of their fourth ground on Tinubu’s alleged non-qualification.Bamidele, in a counter-affidavit, stated that if they had done so, Tinubu would have had the opportunity to respond appropriately, including raising alleged discrepancies in Atiku’s credentials.
The President, in the written address, argued that the Supreme Court cannot accept the written deposition of the Registrar of the CSU, who was not a witness before the PEPC and whose written statement was not activated through oral evidence as required by Section 41 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022.
He also argued that the Supreme Court no longer has the power to assume trial jurisdiction because the 180 days allowed by the Constitution for the hearing of election petition lapsed on September 17. “Unfortunately for the appellants, however, this jurisdiction died as far back as 17th September 2023 upon the expiration of 180 days from the date of filing of the petition by the appellants.
He accused Atiku and his party of deliberately misrepresenting facts before the Supreme Court in relation to their claim that he was not qualified to contest the election. “Arising from the foregoing, we urge the Supreme Court to resolve the sole issue formulated in this address against the appellants/applicants and in favour of the respondent.
He added: “The respondents vehemently objected to the introduction by the petitioners of fresh allegations of forgery of academic certificates and dual citizenship through their reply on diverse grounds, including the fact that they were not pleaded; that there was no ground in the petition to connect them; that they could not bring in those fresh allegations through a reply; that the time for them to introduce new facts had elapsed by statutory and constitutional imperatives.
Bamidele stated that the appellants deliberately went silent on the date they commenced their case before the US court because they knew they were acting outside the time allowed by the Electoral Act.omitted/left out the day they commenced their action against the Chicago State University at the US District Court,” the Senator added.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: TheNationNews - 🏆 6. / 69 Read more »
Source: NigeriaNewsdesk - 🏆 10. / 63 Read more »