Supreme Court Dismisses Atiku’s Plea To File Fresh Evidence Against Tinubu

The Supreme Court, on Thursday threw out the motion by former Vice President and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, seeking leave of court to file fresh evidence in his appeal against the victory of President Bola Tinubu, in the February 25, presidential election. The Petitioner pleaded the apex court to grant him leave to bring in additional evidence by way of depositions on oath from the Chicago State University for use in his appeal to wit: the certified discovery deposition made by Caleb Westberg on behalf of Chicago State University on October 3, 2023, disclaiming the certificate presented by the 2nd respondent, Bola Ahmed Tinubu to the Independent National Electoral Commission. The motion dated 5th October but filed on the 6th, contained a 32-page deposition  released to the former Vice President on the orders of Judge Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, Illinois, United States of America. Ruling on the motion, Justice John Inyang Okoro, held that a clinical look at the issues formulated by all the parties, it is clear that the argument is whether this court as presently constituted has the power to grant the motion.  According to the panel, out of the 7 issues distilled by Atiku for determination, none related or covered forgery, which the appellant is seeking to bring in. It maintained that the Constitution does not permit that, and this court has no jurisdiction to grant the filing of fresh evidence that was not pleaded at the PEPC.  It noted that Atiku did not even deem it fit to file for an amendment of his pleadings and for extension of time, since the 180 days allowed by the Constitution had elapsed since September 17, 2023.

N40m Suit: Court Admits Car Dealer’s Evidence Against Oil Firm, Others

Justice Chinyere Nwecheonwu of High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Kuje, on Wednesday, admitted in evidence, documents and letters to the Central Bank of Nigeria, tendered by Tripple C Motors Ltd against Pagmat Oil and Gas Nig. Ltd, Prudential Steps Savings & Loan and a new generation bank. The documents were tendered in evidence through, Dr Adamu Kukuri, the sole witness called by the car dealer in a bid to prove his case against the defendants.  Dr Kukuri, Director Tripple C Motors Ltd who adopted his witness statement on oath as his evidence was led in evidence by his lawyer, Ojonimi Apeh Esq. Some of the documents tendered by Dr Kukuri and admitted by the court were    complaint letters written to CBN, police interim investigation report, etc. Barrister Elvis Utulu, who represented Fidelity bank did not oppose the admissibility of the tendered documents except three letters that were not front loaded. But Apeh explained that though, the letters were not front loaded, “they are pleaded”.  However, Utulu insisted that he has to go through the documents to enable him prepare for his cross examination of the witness. Dr Kukuri urged the court to give judgment in his favour by granting all his prayers.  Meanwhile, the court has adjourned to September 18, for cross examination of the claimant’s witness. Earlier in the proceeding, Apeh had informed Justice Nwecheonwu, that Pagmat Oil and Gas Nig. Ltd; and Prudential Steps Savings & Loan (2nd and 3rd defendants) respectively, have not been appearing in the matter, despite being served with hearing notices. By the suit, Tripple C Motors is claiming against the defendants jointly and severally, the sum of over N40million as compensation for unlawful withholding of its money for a period of 43 months. Consequently, the claimant wants the court to declare that the refusal and failure of the defendants to pay it the sum of ₦86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) for supply of cars it made for, and at the instance of the defendants as at when due resulted in the loss of profits/earnings to the claimant in the sum of at least N4,300,000.00 (Four Million Three Hundred Thousand Naira) only per month for a period of 43 months cumulating loss of at least N34,400,000.00 (Thirty-Four Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira) only for that period and thereby rendering the defendants liable to the claimant in damages. “An order directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N34,400,000.00 (Thirty-Four Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira) only as projected returns and/or loss of anticipated profits/earnings. They also want twenty percent interest on the judgment sum per month from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is fully liquidated.   “An order directing the defendants to pay the claimant the sum of ₦6,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira) only as cost of this suit.  “A declaration that the claimant was entitled to payment of the sum of ₦86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) by the defendant within 30 days of the supply of the cars for and at the instance of the defendant being the value of the cars supplied for and at the instance of the defendant by the Plaintiff on 28/12/2018. “A declaration that the refusal and failure of the defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of ₦86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) within 30 banking days from the date of supply of the cars by the claimant for, and at the instance of the defendants is a breach of contract between the claimant and the defendants.  In the alternative, the Plaintiff seeks “A declaration that the refusal and failure of the defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of ₦86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) for supply of cars made by the claimant for, and at the instance of the defendants as at when due renders the defendants liable to payment of compensation to the claimant for wrongly holding onto the money of the claimant in a commercial transaction.  “An order directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff an amount which is equal to 20% (twenty percent of N86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) per annum from 12/02/2019 when the said sum of N86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) was due but not paid by the defendant until 06/10/2022 when the defendant paid the claimant the principal contract sum of N86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) as compensation for the wrongful withholding of claimant’s money in a commercial transaction for a period of over 43 months without justification. Twenty percent interest on the judgment sum per month from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is fully liquidated.   “An order directing the defendants to pay the claimant the sum of ₦6,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira) only as cost of this suit.  In a statement of claim, the Claimant avers that the vehicles were only delivered based on the fact that the Block Funds/Irrevocable Standing Order, dated 20th December, 2018 was issued by the banks Utako branch Manager and handed to Dr. Adamu Kukuri, the Claimant’s Director. The Claimant averred that upon the expiration of 30 (Thirty) banking days after delivery of the 7 vehicles, no money was paid into her account with Zenith Bank Plc as agreed to and undertaken in the Block Funds/Irrevocable Standing Order. 

Tribunal admits EU’s final report faulting Tinubu’s victory

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Monday admitted as an exhibit, the final report of the European Union Election Observer Mission, which faulted the conduct and outcome of the 2023 presidential election that produced President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and others as winners. The report tendered by the former Vice President and Presidential candidate of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) Atiku Abubakar was admitted as an exhibit in spite of vehement objections by President Bola Tinubu, the All Progressive Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). In the report, the EU election observer mission claimed that the presidential election did not show credibility, fairness, and transparency in the ways and manners it was conducted by INEC. The report tendered through INEC’s sole witness and Director of Information Technology (IT), Dr. Lawrence Bayode, said only 31 percent of the presidential election results were uploaded into INEC’s result viewing portal. Before the admission of the report, Atiku, through his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche SAN, had applied that cross-examination of the INEC’S witness must be kick-started by Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress APC in view of their common interests against Atiku’s petition. The application was however bluntly opposed by Tinubu and APC through their lead counsel, Wole Olanipekun SAN, and Prince Lateef Olasunkanmi Fagbemi SAN, respectfully. However, the Justice Haruna Tsammani-led panel, admitted it as evidence.