He said it was inciting for anyone to say new evidence would still be accepted by the Supreme Court, in the appeal filed against the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal in September.
A constitutional lawyer, Mike Mbanefo has said that the issue of President Bola Tinubu’s alleged certificate would lack probative value if raised at the Supreme Court.
The legal practitioner said this while featuring on a live programme on Arise News TV, adding that it is a discretionary right of the apex court to decide whether it is apt to allow the parties to adduce new evidence in appeal trials.
He said it was inciting for anyone to say new evidence would still be accepted by the Supreme Court, in the appeal filed against the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal in September.
Atiku, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in the 2023 presidential election had challenged Tinubu’s election. However, the tribunal dismissed the petition, describing it as unmeritorious.
The Registrar of Chicago State University (CSU), Caleb Westberg, had said that the diploma President Bola Tinubu submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), was not issued by Chicago State University (CSU).
A Nigerian-American professor, Farooq Adamu Kperogi had also made six major findings about Tinubu from the CSU documents, pointing out that from the record, Nigeria's President attended the school but forged his diploma certificate submitted to the INEC, probably after he lost his original certificate.
During a world press conference on Thursday, one of Atik’s lawyers, Kalu Kalu, said, “So on the second arm of your question, of what use will it be in the Supreme Court?
“It is very, very clear from the decided authorities, the Supreme Court has held that they can accept a party to adduce fresh evidence as long as certain conditions are met and from what transpired in the proceedings in US courts, that condition has already been met.
“So as we speak, our law is very clear that a party at fault cannot be allowed to enjoy the fruit of his illegality.”
Reacting to the statement, Mr Mbanefo said “it’s an inciting statement”.
“In regards to that, the Supreme Court has the right to accept or not to accept new evidence, there are precedents to accepting or not accepting new facts or new evidence.
“Three of such facts. One, the evidence sought to be tendered newly, has to be something that initially originated from the lower court. Secondly, you must have a basis and reason why you want to tender such evidence at that later stage.
“And finally, what do you intend to do with the evidence you sought to tender. Now when it comes to the issue of new evidence, it is such a ridiculous thing and an attempt for whoever to incite the populace to begin to malign judges on issues they know nothing about. At what point did they discover forgery?
“Because the same certificate has been tendered even when the president was a governor - some 20 years ago. So where the issue of the CSU says that oh, we didn’t issue the certificate tendered to INEC does not conform with what we issued, question. What did they issue? Is it possible that the same certificate issued for a degree person will be the same certificate issued to a diploma holder? The answer is No.
“There are so many documents flying, media trials going right and centre. I’m not holding briefs for anybody. If for anything, I respect the senior advocate who visited here before you. When the CSU says we don’t keep records of diplomas; that says it all.
“It creates a very big lacuna and again forgery is a very serious allegation which neither the CSU nor Atiku nor even the President can say yes or not, reason being that it will not be subjected to investigation which lies within the purview of the Nigerian police, as the case may be, as it affects Nigeria, and the American police, as the case may be as it affects America.
“Now, the issue in both ways is: What will either party do with the results they find? Even if they find out today without so considering that the result is forged, the document is forged, it’s still a useless matter to be talked about at the Supreme Court, because even for the Supreme Court to do anything with the document, they have to consider that acid test of repugnancy.
“How does it benefit the populace? What do you want to achieve with the document you’re tendering? It is such an embarrassing thing to me if you ask me my mind. I think it’s an inciting statement.”