Nigeria’s Supreme Court has dismissed the application of the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, Atiku Abubakar to present fresh evidence to support his appeal at the court.
The apex Court also agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, is like other states.
The presiding justice of the panel, John Okoro, asked, “Are you saying if someone scores 25% votes in 30 states but not in Abuja, he should not be president? Is that how you interpret the law?
Atiku had sought the leave of the apex court to submit Tinubu’s credentials obtained from the Chicago State University to prove the president forged the documents he submitted to INEC.
The matters were, however, heard on Monday by a seven-man panel led by Justice John Okoro.
The argument for and against the admissibility of the fresh documents by Atiku dominated the proceedings.
Reading the lead judgment on Thursday, Okoro said the application was filed after the 180 days prescribed by the law lapsed.
He said 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.“
The Supreme Court also ruled that the failure of the Independent National Electoral Commission to transmit the election results on the INEC Result Viewing Portal did not affect the outcome of the presidential election.
Reading the lead judgment, Okoro said, “When IReV fails, it does not stop the collation of the results. It deprives people of viewing results. The nonfunction will affect the trust of the electorates in the election.
“Unavailability of IReV cannot be a ground for the election to be nullified.
“The failure did not affect the outcome of the election. The issue is resolved against the appellants. “
