According to the Supreme Court, chaired by Justice Inyang Okoro, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the PDP’s fresh evidence.
PDP’s interlocutory application to introduce new evidence (President Tinubu’s certificate from Chicago State University) was denied by Justice Okoro.
In his opinion, Justice Okoro stated that it cannot be believed that parties can confer jurisdiction on the court since the Supreme Court cannot accomplish what the Court of Appeal failed to do.
Justice Inyang went on to say that the Supreme Court cannot invoke Section 22 of its act after the trial court’s deadline of 180 days has passed.
A petitioner may not amend its petition after the 21-day period for filing a petition has expired, according to section 134(7) of the electoral act, and nothing in section 285(6) of the constitution suggests that the court of appeals can hear election petitions without time limits.
The PDP’s position that the court of appeal is not covered by the 180-day term because it is not mentioned as a tribunal in the constitution is erroneous.
The Court in its ruling said the application filed by the PDP cannot be granted and the court cannot admit the deposition.
Justice Inyang said there is no issue for determination by the appellant that points on certificate forgery, hence fresh evidence is not received as a matter of cost.
The supreme court however dismissed PDP’s application to bring in fresh evidence.
