The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Celebration
(PDP) within the final presidential election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has once more
pleaded with the Supreme Court docket to jettison technicality and grant his
software for go away to tender contemporary and extra proof to assist his
declare that President Bola Tinubu, submitted a solid doc to the
Unbiased Nationwide Electoral Fee (INEC) to contest the February 25,
presidential election.
Atiku predicated his plea on the grounds that presenting
solid paperwork by any candidate, particularly by a candidate for the very best
workplace within the land, is a really grave constitutional concern that should not be
inspired.
The previous vp acknowledged this in his reply on level
of regulation to Tinubu’s objection to the grant of go away to Atiku to current the
contemporary proof earlier than the apex courtroom.
Tinubu had predicated his objection on grounds of
jurisdiction and that the problem of qualification is a pre-election matter,
amongst others, and subsequently prayed the courtroom to disclaim the grant of the
software.
However in his reply on level of regulation, Atiku, whereas faulting
Tinubu, submitted that problems with benefit ought to not be decided or pronounced
upon on the interlocutory stage.
The appellants/candidates whereas noting that they’re solely at
this stage merely making use of for go away of the Supreme Court docket to obtain the contemporary
proof, submitted that “to refuse to grant the go away, because the respondents have
argued, will quantity to undue technicality.
“The Supreme Court docket, because the Apex Court docket and certainly the Coverage
Court docket, has intervened repeatedly to do substantial justice in such issues
of nice constitutional significance, because it did within the case of AMAECHI vs. INEC
(2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227 and OBI vs. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1046) 565.
The Supreme Court docket utilized the precept of ubi jus ibi remedium to make sure
substantial justice is finished in such novel situations.
“The necessity to rebuff, eschew and reject technicality and the
obligation of Court docket to make sure substantial justice could be very germane on this matter,
given the gravity of the constitutional concern concerned in deciding whether or not a
candidate for the very best workplace within the land, the workplace of President of the
Nation, offered a solid certificates or not.
“In urging the Honourable Court docket to overrule the objections
of the Respondents, we will do no higher than to commend to your noble Lordships
the insightful phrases of the Supreme Court docket in ASSAH & ORS V. KARA & ORS
(2014) LPELR-24212(SC), per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC as follows:
“Regulation is blind. It has no eyes. It can’t see. That explains
why a statue of a lady together with her eyes lined might be present in entrance of some
Excessive Courts. Quite the opposite, justice will not be blind. It has many eyes, it sees,
and sees very properly.
‘The purpose of Courts is to do substantial justice between the
events and any technicality that rears its ugly head to defeat the reason for
justice can be rebuffed by the Court docket.” (Underlining ours).
In the meantime, in a 20 paragraph affidavit deposed to in assist
of the appliance, Atiku argued that if the Apex Court docket grants the appliance,
there could be no want for “any additional argument aside from the written handle
in assist of identical displaying that the 2nd Respondent is in violation of the
provisions of Part 137 (1) (j) of the Structure by presenting a
certificates disclaimed by the establishment from the place he purportedly procured
identical.
“That opposite to paragraphs 16(xi) of the 2nd Respondent’s
Counter-Affidavit, there was no ex parte communication with the Honourable
Court docket, however the letter was forwarded to the Registrar of the Court docket simply as was
performed within the case of Uzodinma vs. Izunaso (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1275) 30, at 56
(paragraph h of the affidavit on web page 56) through which Counsel for the 2nd
Respondent and Counsel for the Appellants/Candidates have been each concerned.
The deponent, Mr Uyi Giwa-Osagie, additional argued that Tinubu
objection was baseless as a result of he was represented each on the discovery and the
depositions in addition to on the courtroom listening to by his Chicago Attorneys, and that
the 2nd Respondent by no means challenged the problem of venue of the invention and
deposition.
“That the presence of the first and third Respondents on the
discovery and deposition was not essential.
“That I do know that the 2nd Respondent’s attraction was to stop
the invention and deposition, and that the stated Attraction failed.
“That I do know as a incontrovertible fact that the invention and deposition
have been ordered by the District Choose, and was not out-of-court.
“That the Appellants weren’t indolent of their pursuit of
the discoveries and deposition because it was additionally the letter tendered as EXHIBIT
XX2 by the 2nd Respondent in the middle of his defence purportedly issued by
Caleb Westerberg that clearly gave the Appellants/Candidates additional causes to
construct on the proof of PW27 by the invention proceedings for the paperwork
and Deposition on Oath of the identical Caleb Westerberg.
“That the method for the invention and deposition was
commenced by the Appellants/Candidates with a number of preliminary preliminary
processes by their U.S. Attorneys culminating of their finally submitting a
Petition for the issuance of Subpoena, a replica of which is annexed herewith as
EXHIBIT “Ok”.
“That the method was severely stalled by the vehement
opposition of the 2nd Respondent, citing irreparable injury to him, amongst
different excuses, and I annex herewith as EXHIBIT “L” the movement the 2nd
Respondent to quash the subpoena, which software failed.
“That the method was additionally additional delayed by a movement to
be a part of or intervene filed by the 2nd Respondent, which was granted, a replica of
which software is annexed herewith as EXHIBIT “M”.
“That finally the subpoena was ordered, and annex
herewith a replica of the subpoena together with the paperwork that accompanied it as
EXHIBIT “N”.
“That the 2nd Respondent has been in main possession of
all of the details sought within the discovery however took each step to dam their
launch, however that the 2nd Respondent had equally utilized by means of
his Legal professional in the USA, Mr. Wole Afolabi, for the discharge of the
stated paperwork, which have been launched to him as proven is EXHIBIT “P” offered in
the course of the invention and deposition course of.
“That I do know as a incontrovertible fact that the appellants are on this
attraction difficult the rulings of the decrease courtroom putting out sure
paragraphs of their petition in addition to their replies coping with features of
{qualifications} of the 2nd respondent”.
In the meantime, Atiku faulted Tinubu’s submission that he was
inconsistent in his names, describing the submission as immaterial and
pedestrian, as there isn’t a petition difficult his qualification.
“That it’s immaterial that 1st Respondent had since June
twenty fourth 2022 printed the factitious credentials of the 2nd Respondent as
presentation of a solid certificates by a candidate for election to the workplace
of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a post-election matter underneath
Part 137 (1) (j) of the Structure”.
In addition to, Atiku identified that the presentation of a solid
certificates disqualifies a candidate all the time, irrespective of when offered.
“That the case will not be whether or not the 2nd Respondent attended
Chicago State College however whether or not he offered a solid certificates to the
Unbiased Nationwide Electoral Fee (INEC).
“That on the trial, a Nationwide Youth Service Corps
certificates with serial quantity 173807 offered by the 2nd Respondent to the
1st Respondent was equally tendered by the Appellants/Candidates on the trial
as “EXHIBIT PBD 1A” with the title Tinubu Bola Adekunle, which is annexed
herewith as EXHIBIT “J”.
