Allegedl forgery must be proven reasonable doubt, supreme court tells Atiku’s legal team The Chairman of the Supreme Court panel overseeing the appeals against President Bola Tinubu’s election, Justice John Okoro, has stated that Atiku Abubakar, the Peoples Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, must prove the certificate forgery allegation against Tinubu beyond reasonable doubt. This statement came during the hearing of election petition appeals by Atiku and Peter Obi of the Labour Party.Atiku had sought to nullify Tinubu’s victory by alleging that Tinubu falsified his academic rec
ords. Atiku requested access to Tinubu’s academic records from Chicago State University, claiming that the diploma submitted by Tinubu to the Independent National Electoral Commission was not genuine.
The U.S. court ordered the release of Tinubu’s academic records, which Atiku presented as fresh evidence to the Supreme Court.At the Supreme Court, Atiku’s lead counsel argued that Tinubu’s academic records were a significant matter and should be admitted as fresh evidence. However, Justice Okoro emphasized that the issue is of a criminal nature and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
He noted that there were conflicting letters from Chicago State University, one authenticating Tinubu’s certificate and the other discrediting it.Justice Okoro was joined by Justice Emmanuel Agim, who questioned the validity of the depositions Atiku was seeking to tender as evidence, as they were done in the chambers of Atiku’s lawyer, not in the courtroom.
Other counsels argued for and against the admission of the fresh documents, citing technicalities and the 180-day timeline for election petition cases.The Supreme Court ultimately reserved judgment on the matter and on the appeal filed by Peter Obi against the tribunal’s judgment affirming Tinubu’s election.In a separate case, the Allied Peoples Movement’s appeal seeking to nullify the election of the President was struck out. The APM had claimed that the placeholder nominated by the president was not replaced within the required timeframe. The APM lawyer applied to withdraw the appeal, and it was subsequently struck out.