 A chiku abubaka ots press conference ovatinumbu certificate controversy and brain drain eating our universities. I am Bola Oba and thinks is plus politics. Immediately after the elections I was told there was a delegation of governors who claimed they were sent. But I did not even allow them to get into my house. I didn't. You will only drop the fight when the court rules. If the court rules that I am right, fine. If the court rules that he is right. So that's the end of the fight because at the moment we are at the supreme court there is no any higher court than the supreme court. Former vice president at tiku abubaka the presidential candidate of the people's democratic party PDP in the 2023 election has said he would react after the supreme court's judgment. He maintained that he will drop his challenge to the victory of president Bola Tinumbu only when the supreme court rules. And so he was not ready to back down. At tiku had requested the release of president inumbu's certificate from the Chicago State University over the suspicion that the certificate the former legal state governor submitted to the independent national electoral commission INEC may not be authentic. He also called on all world many Nigerians leaders of thoughts, religious, traditional community and political leaders in particular governor Peter Ubi of the labor party and governor Abiyo Konkwanso of the NMPP to join him in his campaign to ensure property accountability and the basic principles of justice morality and uprightness in our country and in our government. Joining me to discuss this is Barista Monde Uyekachi Ubani legal practitioner and chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association section on public interest and development moral MBA, iPhone, Spydero and Evans Ufeli constitutional lawyer gentlemen welcome to post politics this evening thank you let me start with the Barista Ubani Barista what does this as a lawyer who has a special knowledge and who functions in a world that is a bit more akin than where most of us function in what does all this amount to especially in respect of what the supreme court may entertain or ultimately decide when this case commences at the supreme court thank you very much I want to say this with respect I have been here yes I have been here Lord and Master the situation of thing presently that there is an appeal that is pending presently before the supreme court and so he has also sought fresh evidence from the university allegedly attended by our current president and he has succeeded in getting the school to release some of the vital information he needs in order to pursue the appeal to the supreme court now the issue is whether the supreme court will accept admittedly fresh evidence the matter has been concluded by the court below and I have said this somewhere that really do appeal court accept fresh evidence but they can only on exceptional grounds for you to bring fresh evidence after the matter has been concluded because their job is to review the decision of the court below and not to begin to evaluate any evidence fresh evidence that is going to be presented before the appeal court does not take fresh evidence ordinarily but if there are special circumstances under which you are bringing it which ordinarily also will be opposed by opponent the court will now exercise discretion which will exercise both judicially and judiciously and reasonably in order to know whether fresh evidence can be admitted if those evidence were available when you initiated the court at the court below and you didn't present it at that time it will be very difficult to convince that appeal court to accept that evidence now but if it came maybe it wasn't available and it is very vital for the resolution of the matter now that appeal court yes it can call me so what we are now is that we don't know what the supreme court will decide with the evidence that has just been received from the university that was attended by the president so we await the reaction all the supreme court regard is to this fresh evidence whether it be accepted whether it be admissible in the supreme court thank you very much barista abani let me go to barista ufele now barista all this tenacity the enormous amount of resources that the article come must have invested in in an ethane literally on ethane this evidence are you lawyers trying to tell us the non-ranked ones are you lawyers on the opinion that this may not quite fly for the primary purpose that one would ordinarily have thought it was sought after being useful at the supreme court to invalidate the candidature of the president as at the time his document was filed with dining barista ufele the established point is that the essence of admissibility is irrelevance that is the evidence act and evidence is admissible to the extent of its relevance to the fact of issue now this is a piece of evidence that is omitted in the day the general rule of law that the supreme court of the appellate court will not admit fresh evidence that is the general rule however there are sections to this rule section 22 of the supreme court act empower the supreme court so in special circumstances to consider evidence on issues that will raise during the candidacy of the case at the court of first instance in this case the question that you said in the tribunal the tribunal said it was raised but there was no evidence to that effect so in the true sense of it well some persons have called it fresh evidence but I think that it is an issue that was raised even at the court of first instance except that there was no evidence to ground that case and that is why it was thrown out and now the appellate has gone as far as procuring that evidence and most the supreme court to admit that evidence on that effect now the procedure of law is that he must see the legal of the court and he must call by an application emotional notice or effect summing that first party and making that that the court will need to admit the evidence because it is important to the case now there are grounds according to which the supreme court will consider a fresh evidence or an evidence that is coming at the point when the case will be on appeal 1 if the evidence will not be available at the time that is to admit that that is at the court of first instance that too the issuance has been raised at the court of first instance and possibly the evidence will not be procured at that time there are no appeal now session 22 of the supreme court art and power of the supreme court to ever hear that case or the law because the definition of law is justice that is why the law gives the court the supreme court this elaborate discretion and then one start 2-3 rights to look into matter beyond what has happened in the court of first instance and in this case what happened before now was that that evidence will not available and now it is available the same issue was raised at the court of first instance now the evidence available so I don't see any of the right supreme court will not admit that evidence however in which that supreme court will place on the evidence is another issue the property value which it gives to it because if you the evidence the evidence is question about from the past or the test that is set down by the evidence art the first which is relevant it is relevant to the first nation yes okay so if the evidence available before the court now how would be that the supreme court yes have the appellant how the motion to see the legal the court right effect that has not been done that is an established rule then if you find that and this is the appellant party if they do that fine then they proceed to hearing that and then move that motion before the court of course the appellant party will object but the nature of the evidence itself okay was not was not is also that was first of all before the existence of that of that document jail existence have been excavated excavated from the school that issued it and same have been procured so the next level the same to return that through the motion లిర్రోలో స్జే ఉతదార్ఇలోకిను ిర్పౌనికును. త్న్లోలో ట్న్లోాచార్ర్య్ర్. ఇన్లోలోలియక౔... రిర్లోలోట్రోకో ర్న్ర్ర్. I almost thought it was an iron-clad closure that it would not be admissible. Listening again now to Pasta Ophelia is like, as is typical, when you listen to two more years or more, it's like okay, there may be a window. That window may also be what may have instructed articles, tenacity and enormous amount of resources must have expanded to excavate this evidence. What would be your take to Pasta Ophelia's exposition and enlightenment that you have just given? I don't know whether you listen to me, I said, ordinarily. The appellate court does not admit fresh evidence. That is what I said. But under special circumstances they do. I said that in my opening statement. If you are able to prove that that particular evidence was not advisable at the time you initiated the process at the bottom. If you do prove that that it wasn't there. Or if that evidence, piece of evidence was available to you and you omitted it, and you did not in a new way from loaded, you did not in a new way bring it up. And turn that before the court below. You cannot bring it up now as a documentary evidence you want to come and bring before this appellate court. So the law demands, and which is, which you corroborate, is that you cannot bring a fresh evidence before the appellate court unless you are able to justify. And that justification is the very exceptional ground under which they will. So if they prove that at the time they initiated this process. Those records that are released by the school was not available. But they started the initiation of going to the university in order to get this particular report. Which eventually was released other years that day of today. Then the court will look at it. But as I said earlier, it is still a discretion that the court has to exercise. It is a discretionary power. They have to exercise in admitting. And that particular discretionary power the law says must be exercised judicially that in accordance with the law, judicially, with equity fairness in mind, and reasonably too. So even though it is going to be admitted, it will be a discretion that the supreme court can. Baristow, Wane, let me just say this. As I said earlier, this matter is before the supreme court. And we do not want to delve into it. What we do is to look at it at the level that it stays without going too much details. They will be the ones to know what they will do. But the law is that ordinarily it does not bring fresh evidence. Are they appellate court? You can only do that if it wasn't available at the time you will be shaped by the process that they called below. And we have found out in this article that they are late for dream. They did a late for dream. But they are not able to prove it. So the facts has already been avowed in their petition. So the law was missing out at this documentary that adjusts the release. So they can now bring it out before. Because suppose there are form records that would have been transmitted. It is not a fresh thing that is coming before the supreme court are fresh. It is not part of the records that was transmitted from the court below. So that's why it's a fresh evidence. Documentary though. So the court now will look at it. And find out whether there is reason for it to be admitted. Under the society expression they may exercise in their favor or against the person that have brought that particular application. That can only come before the court. But can an online character like me just simply put everything in this dictum. Is not over until it is over? Can one just simply say oh. I didn't hear you. I didn't hear you. Put that dictum again. That dictum you said. Okay. I said can you that is as online as I am. I'm not a lawyer. You are a lawyer. I'm educated. I'm educated but not online. As you know as you say. But I'm actually saying one can safely say at this juncture that it is not over until it is over. Correct. Correct. It is not as easy as people think. There are other considerations which we have said. The ordinary adults. But for you now to succeed in getting the supreme court now appellate court now to look at a first evidence pre-documentary evidence. You must have actually predicted it. And you are bringing it because it wasn't available at the time you initiated the court in the process at the court below. And some other considerations at the court will take into full account before they can now exercise discretion. But there is a person as I said that must be exercised judicially in accordance with law judicially with fairness and put in mind and of course wisdom. Barista Efele. Let's now take a panoramic look at the documents that have been excavated using your word. I quite like your word. Excavated more than the one I earlier used as in on health. Looking panoramically at the at the documents including the the diploma or the certificate. What is your take if you have any observations or opinions you want to throw out there? Well clearly the documents that was issued by the school department was a way to have attended but actually different from the one that was submitted to ANEK because if you look at the one that the school produced you will find now that there is an issue with the gender with the female. If you look at the one that was submitted to ANEK which was alleged to be the one that was used by the NYC that on the A there stated a different from the one that is in the school. So by the time you put a photograph in the face of it it is quite clear that the two documents are not the same. I said that the school has said he attended that university but the fact that what is submitted to ANEK is a variance with what you know how from the school was the one that showed that perhaps that document is not the genuine document. By the time you look at by the time you look at valid as the observation may seem the registrar of the school literally affirmed are under house that the person in question attended the school and that diploma the paper document that we call certificate here and they called Diploma in America that is quite superfluous to the to the validation of was educational documentation in America that you could you know what was important to them with their transcript and that you know knowing the the anonymity of the penalty of of poetry in America which is 10 years why would somebody as putable as the registrar of such a school want to affirm in the law court that the gentleman passed through the school as a bona fide student I'm just asking given the observations you earlier pointed out. Sometimes until this they bring this very difficult situation upon themselves first of all the constitution that clearly says that the minimum requirement it just your ability to it does not even say you must have any certificate the Masari rule the Masari rule of the Supreme Court you know when Masari became the speaker of the House of Representatives some members of the House took him as far as the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled that he didn't even need a school certificate all he needed to do was to prove that he could read and write and show evidence that he had worked in a company or organization for 10 years people don't know that you don't even need you don't even need a school certificate to become the president of Nigeria so if you have if you have a law that would start to free at the judicial president that would use the qualification to review this minimum to almost nothing why do you take a certificate that you cannot defend and submit them to a leg and then turn around to go and file an application and I've seen that this would be restrained so I'm relieving the academic documents to the public it would cost a hand and make a little money to your person and pay degree and all that they deported themselves in feeling this situation by refusing to by concealing and refusing to allow for a free a free hand in the possession of that certificate now the written is out there the supreme court would decide on a value what they are going to do in the case of my reference but what I think is that at this level the president of Nigeria ought not to be seen around the circumstances we have to be because the country is battling with a lot of issues and to add these to it that we now inflame and create some international discords it's not a one that we should be talking about so the pressure should save us from some of these problems and he could have just submitted his primary certificate or just to the capacity to be a president so we are trying to prove that we have gone to everywhere and we have been everything before now with our politicians and I think that the supreme court should deal with this issue on the face value on the interpretation of the law as it is so that this will stand as a deterrent to other positions who they want to throw that to I mean let me quickly go to minister minister Ibane we are waiting for the some of us are already preparing we are waiting for the seat but you know what minister Ibane you are a senior member of the bar whichever way we look at it if you want to be the council to to any of the two principal principals of this of the parties involved in this course what will be your advice to each one of them legal service public legal service they would have paid me so much money for this advice you want me to give now article has gone so far in getting this particular information and this is the first time in our political and judicial experience for us to have such a matter of this magnitude at the electoral level issue of electoral matters we have never gotten to the level where any party would have gone to this extent of going to a foreign university you know they are not even at the stationate level so this is the first time this is going to happen you may have forgotten you may have forgotten the fact too that with president muhammad ibuwari some people went as far as proving that went as far as saying that although you attended a postgraduate school a military postgraduate school in America but that the the certificate or the qualifications president was not satisfactory to them although it was not it was not argued that the supreme court but they have been precedent of himself of a similar what i am trying to say is that we never had any proceeding of this nature in Britain with regards to the the qualification or papers of buari of course you can recall this is the second time we have issue of certificate right or right but the level that article has taken is a different level in time that is what i am trying to say now that he has gone so far he has said he is not going to back up at this level because the matter presently is before the supreme court so he want to go down he will want a pronouncement by the supreme court in order for him to relax and whatever the supreme court says that he is ready to abide by it so i will not be in a position now to tell him probably to back down because he has gone to this level spend so much money in order to get at this particular evidence so let the supreme court satisfy his curiosity as to the validity or the youthfulness of that piece of evidence that he wants to now bring before the supreme court in order to prove his point now for the respondent and that is the legal team of president they are going to do a lot they need to study the strategy of the appellan what strategy are they coming with what manner of strategy are they going to persuade the supreme court now how would you also persuade the supreme court in order not to assist to whatever request that the legal team of article be presented so i will advise them to master the strategy and know what to do looking at the state of the law electoral law the provisions of the constitution every law that is available including evidence at this point i really do appreciate your coming on this evening i also want to say thank you to bystow fairly time has not been kind to us as it is sweet we just have to hand it thank you very much gentlemen we go on a short break now and one way back we will be looking at brain drain eating our universities thank you thank you for having us