The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar has applied for leave of the Supreme Court to file fresh evidence against President Bola Tinubu.
Atiku’s evidence was related to a claim that Tinubu forged the document he submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
He urged the Supreme Court to allow him to present fresh evidence to back his claim that presenting forged documents by any candidate, especially by a candidate for the highest office in the land, was a very grave constitutional issue that must not be encouraged.
Part of Atiku’s court paper read:
ATTENTION: Click “HERE” to join our WhatsApp group and receive News updates directly on your WhatsApp!
“The Supreme Court, as the apex court and indeed a policy court, has intervened time and again to do substantial justice in such matters of great constitutional importance, as it did in 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 applied the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium to ensure substantial justice is done in such novel scenarios.
“The need to rebuff, eschew, and reject technicality and the duty of the court to ensure substantial justice is very germane in this matter, given the gravity of the constitutional issue involved in deciding whether a candidate for the highest office in the land, the office of President of the country, presented a forged certificate or not.
“Law is blind. It has no eyes. It cannot see. That explains why a statue of a woman with her eyes covered can be found in front of some high courts. On the contrary, justice is not blind. It has many eyes, it sees and sees very well. The aim of courts is to do substantial justice between the parties and any technicality that rears its ugly head to defeat the cause of justice will be rebuffed by the court.
“At the trial, a National Youth Service Corps certificate with serial number 173807 presented by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent was equally tendered by the appellants/applicants at the trial as ‘EXHIBIT PBD 1A’ with the name Tinubu Bola Adekunle, which is annexed herewith as EXHIBIT J.”
