The Supreme Court finds itself in a situation where it must address conflicting statements from Chicago State University (CSU) regarding President Bola Tinubu’s educational credentials.
This revelation came to light during the proceedings led by Justice John Okoro, the Chairman of a 7-member panel responsible for examining the application filed by Atiku Abubakar, the Presidential Candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Atiku is contesting the victory of President Bola Tinubu, who was declared the winner of the February election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Despite the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal dismissing the appeals of Atiku and Peter Obi of the Labour Party, they have taken their case to the highest court, with Atiku seeking to submit additional evidence alleging forgery on Tinubu’s part.
Atiku had sought Tinubu’s academic record from Chicago State University so as to prove his allegation that the president submitted forged documents to INEC.
However, by the times the documents were released the 180 days statutory period within which an election petition should be filed and determined had elapsed.
But Atiku asked the court to grant his appeal to tender fresh evidence, given the nature of the issue. Tinubu kicked against this, saying granting such would amount to abuse of court process.
Atiku predicated his plea on the grounds that presenting forged documents by any candidate, especially by one for the highest office in the land, is a grave constitutional issue that must not be encouraged.
But Tinubu kicked, arguing that the issue is a pre-election matter amongst others and subsequently prayed the court to deny the grant of the application.
While faulting Tinubu, Atiku submitted that issues of merit ought not to be determined or pronounced upon at the interlocutory stage.
Atiku also pointed out that the presentation of a forged certificate disqualifies a candidate for all time, no matter when presented.
Speaking at the hearing on Monday, Justice Okoro said criminal matters have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
“But in this case, there are two conflicting letters from the CSU – one authenticating the president’s certificate and another discrediting it. Which do we rely on?,” he asked.
