The Court also ordered Atiku to respond to Tinubu’s argument by September 9, two weeks after Mr Tinubu’s response was anticipated.
A United States court has set August 23 as the deadline for President Bola Tinubu to present persuasive arguments as to why Chicago State University should not be ordered to release his academic records to Atiku Abubakar, his rival in the February 25 presidential election in Nigeria.
The deadline, which is contained in a court filings seen by Peoples Gazette, was imposed on August 9 by Jeffrey Gilbert, the new magistrate judge assigned to the case at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.
The Court also ordered Atiku to respond to Tinubu’s argument by September 9, two weeks after Mr Tinubu’s response was anticipated.
According to the report, the timeline shows the court is racing to rule on the matter before September 21, when Nigeria’s election petitions tribunal will likely deliver its judgement in the suit challenging Tinubu’s election victory.
Atiku and Peter Obi of the Labour Party and their parties had filed petitions to challenge the outcome of the presidential election.
On July 11, Atiku also filed the petition seeking to obtain further details of Tinubu’s academic records at the Chicago State University.
Documents sought by Atiku, through his counsel, Angela M. Liu, include record of his admission and acceptance at the university, dates of attendance including degrees, awards and honours attained by Tinubu at the university.
Atiku informed the court that Tinubu subpoena was to test the truth and veracity of Mr. Tinubu’s assertions, adding that he is currently Nigeria's President and facing various court proceedings concerning his election and the authenticity of documents relating to his attendance at Chicago State University.
But Tinubu has filed a motion to prevent the school from disclosing his educational records.
Tinubu’s counsel, Victor P. Henderson, asked the court to strike it out as no judge of the court heard and granted Atiku the subpoena.
He contends that the petition was invalid for providing only six days for compliance, which was less than 14 days provided under Rules 219 and 137 of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules.
He said Atiku engaged himself in an “improper fishing expedition about a foreign public official utilising the Illinois court’s subpoena power.”