He argued 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.
Atiku’s latest submission is his reply on points of law to Tinubu’s objection to the grant of leave to Atiku to present the fresh evidence before the apex court.
Tinubu through his lawyers led by Wole Olanipekun (SAN) had objected to the admission of the documents on grounds that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain it, adding that the issue of qualification is a pre-election matter, among others.
Atiku’s lawyers led by Chris Uche (SAN) argued that they are merely applying for leave to receive the fresh evidence, and “to refuse to grant the leave as the respondents have argued, will amount to undue technicality.”
“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,” he said.