The Supreme Court has reserved ruling in the appeal filed by Atiku Abubakar, the Presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, challenging the victory of President Bola Tinubu in the February 25 presidential election.
This decision was made by a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, which included John Okoro, Uwani Abba-Aji, Lawal Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Tijjani Abubakar, and Emmanuel Agim, after both parties in the appeal had adopted their respective briefs of arguments on Monday.
The Supreme Court’s decision to reserve judgment in the appeal was reached by a seven-member panel, which featured prominent justices such as John Okoro, Uwani Abba-Aji, Lawal Garba, Ibrahim Saulawa, Adamu Jauro, Tijjani Abubakar, and Emmanuel Agim.
This occurred after both parties involved in the appeal adopted their respective briefs of arguments on Monday. Following that, the esteemed panel of Supreme Court justices actively deliberated on the case, emphasizing the significance of this significant step.
This meticulous evaluation is critical in high-profile cases like this, ensuring precise and equitable justice. Atiku, who ran for office with the PDP, petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn Tinubu’s election.
Recall that Atiku had urged the highest court in the land to allow him to present new and compelling evidence to support his claim that President Tinubu forged documents submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission.
He noted that the presentation of forged documents by any candidate is a matter of grave constitutional concern, one that demands strict scrutiny.
The APM’s appeal was dismissed when their counsel, Chukwuma Umeh, applied to withdraw the case.
The Justices reprimanded APM’s counsels for raising an appeal that had already been adjudicated by the Presidential Election Petition Court. This decision underscores the diligent consideration of the case by the esteemed panel of Supreme Court justices.
A seven-member panel of the apex court berated the party for filing an appeal it said was baseless.
The panel queried what the APM stood to gain from the appeal which it said was one of the reasons that the apex court is overworked.
It said the appeal would amount to a total waste of time and an academic exercise since the party only wanted the apex court to “state the law”.
“If we are idle, then maybe we will state the law. If there is nothing for you to gain from an appeal, you don’t just come to court for interpretation.
“If for instance that you win a case, there must be something to be gained from the victory. We have read your appeal, there is absolutely nothing in it. You are not asking for your candidate to declared winner or anything of such, all you want is for the President to be removed.
“If we remove the President, then what next? There are two other appeals here that are asking for something substantial”, Justice Okoro fumed.
