Nigeria’s Supreme Court has commenced hearing a petition seeking to nullify the election of President Bola Tinubu.
The petition was filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party (LP), and Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
Justice Inyang Okoro is leading the bench of seven Supreme Court Judges including Justice Helen Ogunwumiju, Justice Ibrahim Saulawa, Justice Adamu Jauro, Justice Tijani Abubakar, Justice Emmanuel Agim and Justice Lawal Garba in hearing the presidential petition.
Leaders who were present during the hearing include national chairman of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), Abdullahi Ganduje, Labour Party (LP) chairman Julius Abure and the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila.
The National Security Adviser (NSA) Nuhu Ribadu and other political party leaders were in attendance.
READ ALSO: Opposition parties challenge President Bola Tinubu’s victory at Supreme Court
During the hearing, PDP presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar is expected to prove to the court that President Tinubu submitted a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
Atiku, who was represented by his lawyer Chris Uche, explained to the court that the accusation of Tinubu forging a certificate from Chicago State University was so serious according to constitutional provisions.
READ ALSO: Nigeria responds to President Tinubu’s fake degree certificate saga
According to Uche, the court should scrutinize the certificate and give a fair verdict, without avoiding it on technicality grounds.
When Justice Inyang Okoro asked him if the Supreme Court should rely on the Electoral Act or the Constitution, Uche said the issue is a constitutional one.
On the other hand, counsel to President Bola Tinubu, Wole Olanikpekun argued that the question of 180 days is clear.
The president’s lawyer noted that it was too late for Atiku to file new evidence in the case, as it was already overtaken by time.
READ ALSO: Politician calls for arrest of former presidential candidate Peter Obi
Olanikpekun told the court that the application should be dismissed as it lacked merit.
He explained that the court is bound by law, and the law should be interpreted as it is, and not on how it ought to be.
