A human rights lawyer and former chairman, Nigerian Bar Association, Ikeja branch, Lagos State, Dr Monday Ubani, has said that the Supreme Court may not admit fresh evidence in the case seeking the authenticity of President Bola Tinubu’s university records, The Nigerian Lawyer reports.
The Peoples Democratic Party presidential candidate in the February 25 election, Atiku Abubakar, had challenged the Chicago State University to release Tinubu’s academic records.
Atiku had also asked the apex court to nullify Tinubu’s victory as declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
In a series of events, Tinubu’s legal team had kicked against the request, after which a United States court sitting in Illinois ordered the release.
The former Vice President had stated his need for the records to be used in his appeal to the Supreme Court.
However, Ubani, in an interview on Channels Television’s programme, Sunrise Daily, on Thursday, said, “Looking at the facts surrounding it, the issue of admissibility of fresh evidence by the appellate court is very rare, especially if that evidence was available to you while you were initiating the process.
“The Supreme Court will never, even the Court of Appeal will not, admit fresh evidence because their job is to review the decision of the court below and not to now evaluate any evidence. They don’t take any evidence but there are special circumstances under which fresh evidence can be admitted by the appellate court and that ground is maybe by the time you file the case that evidence was not available.”
A Registrar of the CSU, Caleb Westberg, on Tuesday, swore under oath that President Bola Tinubu attended and graduated from the institution in 1979.
Westberg also admitted that the admission letter issued to the Nigerian President evidently proved he was a male and attended the school between 1977 and 1979.
While noting that the apex court rarely admits fresh evidence, Ubani, also a former second vice-president of the NBA, said Atiku’s legal team must be ready to convince the apex court on the admissibility of the fresh evidence.
He, however, said that the Supreme Court may use a ‘discretionary power’ to either admit the fresh evidence or not.
Ubani said, “The issue of admissibility of fresh evidence is very critical, you must convince, and whoever is bringing it will be opposed by the other party. So, the court now exercises what is called discretionary power in either admitting or not allowing that fresh evidence to come in.”
