Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the judgment of the tribunal for striking out witnesses of Atiku Abubakar’s testimonies on the irregularities in the February 2023 general election.
A seven-man panel led by Justice John Okoro in the judgment described Atiku’s witnesses’ testimonies as hearsays.
Okoro said, “A political party can’t appoint an octopus agent who will be at every polling unit on Election Day.
“Atiku’s agents can only testify in their polling units where they witnessed what they saw, but not across the country where they were not present.
”I adopt the decision of the lower court which is in line with a plethora of precedents. The witnesses’ testimonies were hearsay.”
The finding of the lower court in discountenancing the Atiku’s witnesses cannot be faulted.”
Atiku Abubakar seeks to submit Tinubu’s credentials obtained from the Chicago State University to prove that President Tinubu forged the documents he submitted to INEC to support his appeal at the court.
But the apex Court dismissed the application of the presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party, Atiku Abubakar to present fresh evidence.
The lead counsel for Atiku, Chris Uche, SAN asked the court to admit Tinubu’s credentials obtained from the Chicago State University, stressed that the allegation of forgery against President Tinubu has a grave constitutional consequence that the Supreme Court should look into.
Wole Olanipekun, SAN, the counsel to Tinubu, told the court not to accept the fresh documents, and that INEC was not a party to it.
Okoro when delivering the judgement said the application was filed after the 180 days prescribed by the law lapsed and the court cannot activate section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to admit fresh evidence.
He said: “The leave cannot be granted. We do not have the vires to grant it. There is no paragraph in the petition that indicates forgery. It would float on the appeal if it should be admitted.
“They (petitioners) were tardy and not diligent enough. This does not fit into the determination of this appeal. It is hereby refused and dismissed. “