The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2023 election, Atiku Abubakar, has again asked the Supreme Court to grant his application to tender fresh and additional evidence to support his claim that President Bola Tinubu submitted forged document to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to contest the February 25 presidential poll.

Atiku, a former Vice President, stated that presenting forged documents by any candidate, especially by a candidate for the highest office in the land, is a very grave constitutional issue that must not be encouraged.

The PDP presidential standard-bearer stated this in his reply on point of law to Tinubu’s objection to the grant of leave to Atiku to present the fresh evidence before the Supreme Court.

Tinubu had urged the apex court to dismiss the application, describing it as an abuse of court processes.

However, Atiku, in his response on the point of law, urged the court to jettison technicality and grant his application.

The former Vice President stated that issues of merit ought not to be determined or pronounced upon at the interlocutory stage.

He argued that to refuse to grant the leave as the respondents have argued, will amount to undue technicality.

Atiku said: “The Supreme Court, as the Apex Court and indeed the Policy Court, has intervened time and again to do substantial justice in such matters of great constitutional importance, as it did in the case of Ameachi vs INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227 and Obi vs. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1046) 565. The Supreme Court applied the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium to ensure that substantial justice is done in such novel scenarios.

READ ALSO: Tinubu to Supreme Court: Dismiss Atiku’s appeal for lacking merit

“The need to rebuff, eschew and reject technicality and the duty of Court to ensure substantial justice is very germane in this matter, given the gravity of the constitutional issue involved in deciding whether a candidate for the highest office in the land, the office of President of the Country, presented a forged certificate or not.

“In urging the Honourable Court to overrule the objections of the Respondents, we can do no better than to commend to your noble Lordships the insightful words of the Supreme Court in Assah & Others V. Kara & Others (2014) LPELR-24212(SC), per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC as follows.

“Law is blind. It has no eyes. It cannot see. That explains why a statue of a woman with her eyes covered can be found in front of some High Courts. On the contrary, justice is not blind. It has many eyes, it sees, and sees very well.

“The aim of Courts is to do substantial justice between the parties and any technicality that rears its ugly head to defeat the cause of justice will be rebuffed by the Court.”

Atiku further argued that if the Supreme Court grants the application, there would be no need for “any further argument other than the written address in support of same showing that the 2nd Respondent is in violation of the provisions of Section 137 (1) (j) of the Constitution by presenting a certificate disclaimed by the institution from where he purportedly procured same.

“That, contrary to paragraphs 16(xi) of the 2nd Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit, there was no ex parte communication with the Honourable Court, but the letter was forwarded to the Registrar of the Court just as was done in the case of Uzodinma vs. Izunaso (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1275) 30, at 56 (paragraph h of the affidavit on page 56) in which Counsel for the 2nd Respondent and Counsel for the Appellants/Applicants were both involved.”

Atiku had approached the Supreme Court to nullify the judgement of the Presidential Election Petition Court which upheld the victory of President Tinubu in the 2023 presidential election.

The Star