1.4K
President Bola Tinubu Wednesday filed his response objecting to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granting the subpoena of Atiku Abubakar, candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to compel Chicago State University (CSU) to produce critical documents relating to Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s identity and credentials.
Tinubu contested the February 25 Presidential election on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and was declared winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Atiku, by and through his counsel, had applied to the Court for an order granting him leave to compel CSU to release and verify the authenticity of documents purportedly issued to Tinubu by the university.
Tinubu was given deadline of August 23 to file his responses to the queries raised by Atiku in his petition to the US court.
Ahead of the expiration of the deadline by midnight of Wednesday, August 23, 2023, Tinubu through his counsels filed his 16-page response accompanying it with a 157-page body of evidence.
According to Tinubu, in his response, “the information sought for by Atiku is not “for use” in the electoral ballot counting challenge filed by the applicant (Atiku), and the Applicant is not an “interested person” in the other proceedings where the material could potentially be relevant.
“The discretionary factors weigh against allowing the discovery because the interested parties here are also parties in the foreign proceeding, and there is no indication that the electoral court would accept information unconnected to the ballot counting challenge.
“Lastly, the subpoenas are intrusive and overbroad and unnecessary considering the affidavit provided by Chicago State University’s registrar which clearly and conclusively establishes that Bola A. Tinubu graduated with a degree from CSU in June 1979. The Application should be denied,” Tinubu averred.
Tinubu in his response noted that there are three requirements of the law to be met for the subpoena to be effective.
While admitting that one aspect of the three legal requirements was met by Atiku, Tinubu said that two other aspects of the law that would have helped Atiku’s subpoena were not met.
Tinubu argued that the discovery is not “for use” in the pending electoral challenge in Nigeria and that the petition is lengthy and asserts a series of errors in the process for tabulating ballots and in how the ballots were counted (electronically).
The petition, Tinubu averred, does not mention or assert some errors in President Tinubu’s educational background, adding “the records sought in the Application are therefore not “for use” in the pending electoral proceedings.”
Tinubu argued: “The Application and memorandum in support do not directly connect the discovery sought with the electoral challenge petition. Instead, the memorandum asserts President Tinubu’s educational background is “at issue”, and references the electoral challenge petition.
“Absent from both the underlying electoral petition and the memorandum are allegations that CSU’s records or President Tinubu’s education somehow affected the counting of ballots. The Application therefore does not seek documents “for use” in the Nigeria election proceedings brought by Mr. Abubakar.”
Tinubu’s also argued that Atiku is not an “interested party” in other proceedings because the requested discovery is not for use in the electoral challenge petition, the memorandum references a different proceeding where Mr. Abubakar is not a party and thereafter generalizes about “Nigerian proceedings.”
Atiku, by and through his counsel, had applied to the Court for an order granting him leave to compel CSU to release and verify the authenticity of documents purportedly issued to Tinubu by the university.
Tinubu was given deadline of August 23 to file his responses to the queries raised by Atiku in his petition to the US court.
Ahead of the expiration of the deadline by midnight of Wednesday, August 23, 2023, Tinubu through his counsels filed his 16-page response accompanying it with a 157-page body of evidence.
According to Tinubu, in his response, “the information sought for by Atiku is not “for use” in the electoral ballot counting challenge filed by the applicant (Atiku), and the Applicant is not an “interested person” in the other proceedings where the material could potentially be relevant.
“The discretionary factors weigh against allowing the discovery because the interested parties here are also parties in the foreign proceeding, and there is no indication that the electoral court would accept information unconnected to the ballot counting challenge.
“Lastly, the subpoenas are intrusive and overbroad and unnecessary considering the affidavit provided by Chicago State University’s registrar which clearly and conclusively establishes that Bola A. Tinubu graduated with a degree from CSU in June 1979. The Application should be denied,” Tinubu averred.
Tinubu in his response noted that there are three requirements of the law to be met for the subpoena to be effective.
While admitting that one aspect of the three legal requirements was met by Atiku, Tinubu said that two other aspects of the law that would have helped Atiku’s subpoena were not met.
Tinubu argued that the discovery is not “for use” in the pending electoral challenge in Nigeria and that the petition is lengthy and asserts a series of errors in the process for tabulating ballots and in how the ballots were counted (electronically).
The petition, Tinubu averred, does not mention or assert some errors in President Tinubu’s educational background, adding “the records sought in the Application are therefore not “for use” in the pending electoral proceedings.”
Tinubu argued: “The Application and memorandum in support do not directly connect the discovery sought with the electoral challenge petition. Instead, the memorandum asserts President Tinubu’s educational background is “at issue”, and references the electoral challenge petition.
“Absent from both the underlying electoral petition and the memorandum are allegations that CSU’s records or President Tinubu’s education somehow affected the counting of ballots. The Application therefore does not seek documents “for use” in the Nigeria election proceedings brought by Mr. Abubakar.”
Tinubu’s also argued that Atiku is not an “interested party” in other proceedings because the requested discovery is not for use in the electoral challenge petition, the memorandum references a different proceeding where Mr. Abubakar is not a party and thereafter generalizes about “Nigerian proceedings.”