…says the law doesn’t permit amendment
By Adeyinka Adeniran
Before Justice Okoro Iyang started reading the judgment, he boldly said “I am the one that wrote the judgment”
The Supreme Court says no evidence to prove that PBAT forged certificate.
The Supreme Court says they can’t accept fresh evidence since Atiku failed to raise it at the lower court.
The Supreme Court cannot activate section 22 of the Supreme Court Act after 180 days have lapsed at the lower court.
The application to file fresh evidence runs foul of the provisions of the Electoral Act that prohibits the amendment of an election petition 21 days after the election petition.
The court found ridiculous the submission of Atiku Counsel that the 180-day rule does not apply to a court of appeal sitting on the presidential election petition.
The Supreme Court rejected the CSU evidence, they said the law doesn’t permit amendment
The judge said “I wonder how the appellants planned to use the documents from Chicago State University”
The judge went on to say this motion is after 180 days as prescribed by the law. There is no way this motion can be sent back to the lower court to try the matter again. This court cannot carry out what the lower court cannot do
There is no doubt that the deposition is one of substance and that is why the appellants are seeking to introduce it.
After the expiration of the time of the petition, no amendment shall be made (he reads the contents of the Electoral Act, 2023). Nothing can be clearer than the above provision. A Petitioner shall not be permitted to amend their petition 21 days after the filing petition.
On section 285 of the Constitution, the appellants argued that there is no such limit as 180 days on which the lower court can hear matters of the election petition tribunal. It is shocking to have the above argument. It is an unnecessary joke. It is unfair to suggest that we go back to the previous laws.
The lower court is bound by Sec. 285(6) of the Constitution. They had to prove their case within 180 days and this expired on 17th September 2023.
The lower court therefore had no jurisdiction. Consequently, since the lower courts had no jurisdiction, it follows that this Supreme also has no jurisdiction to do that.
