Atiku based his argument on the fact that providing fake documents by any candidate is a serious constitutional violation that should not be promoted, especially by a contender for the highest office in the land.
This was said by the former vice president in his legal response to Tinubu’s argument to grant Atiku permission to present new evidence to the Supreme Court.
President Tinubu had based his objection on jurisdictional grounds and the fact that the question of qualification is an election-related subject, among other things. He then pleaded with the court to reject the application.
Atiku criticized President Tinubu and asserted that decisions on matters of merit should not be made during the interlocutory stage.
Even though they are currently only asking the Supreme Court for permission to receive new evidence, the appellants/applicants contended that “to refuse to grant the leave as the respondents have argued, will amount to undue technicality.”
In contrast, Atiku contended in a 20-paragraph affidavit submitted in support of the application that, if the Supreme Court allows the request,
“Any further argument other than the written address in support of same, showing that the 2nd Respondent violates the provisions of Section 137 (1) (j) of the Constitution by presenting a certificate disclaimed by the institution from which he purportedly procured same,” would not be required.
As there is no petition contesting President Tinubu’s eligibility, Atiku criticized Tinubu’s claim that he was inconsistent in his use of names. He called the claim trivial and banal. In addition, Atiku emphasized that presenting a fake document disqualifies a candidate indefinitely, regardless of when it is presented.