According to a seasoned attorney named Paul Erokoro, SAN, presenting fresh material to the Supreme Court is a difficult undertaking that takes a lot of work. He claims that the Supreme Court has very strict guidelines for admitting new evidence.
New evidence is diacouraged
This was said by Erokoro on Sunday in Abuja while speaking with the News Agency of Nigeria. He claimed that new evidence is generally discouraged at the Supreme Court.
“The general norm is that new evidence is not favoured at all before the Supreme Court or any Court of Appeal, but that does not mean that it is completely prohibited.
“However, there are very strict requirements for admitting it. The first is that the resolution of the case’s concerns will depend heavily on this kind of evidence. One of the obstacles to overcome is that.
The evidence was not presented during trail
The second obstacle is that, with due diligence, such evidence could not have been obtained during the trial at the trial court. Therefore, either the evidence was not present at the time of the trial or it could not have been made available with any semblance of diligence or reasonable effort.
Evidence must, at the very least, satisfy those two requirements in order to be admitted before the Supreme Court or any Court of Appeal, he added.
The senior attorney said, “Most of these rules are case laws, and the Evidence Act does not specifically make these provisions.” This was in response to a question about whether the constitution contains clauses permitting a party to present more evidence to the Supreme Court.
The case have passed the 6 month timeline
He emphasised that it is only supported by the court’s guidelines. “The constitution stipulates that an election petition must be resolved by the election tribunal, which in the case of the presidential election is the Court of Appeal, within 180 days.
“Therefore, if the trial court’s jurisdiction has ended, the Court of Appeal, which may have the authority to allow fresh evidence, cannot have any jurisdiction.
“For instance, even if the Supreme Court wanted to admit additional evidence after the six-month deadline had passed, it doesn’t seem to me that it would be able to do so,” he continued. “If a Court of Appeal has within six months to hear and conclude a presidential election matter and the six months have passed,
Trial window has closed
If such evidence becomes available, in his opinion, it is highly unlikely to be permitted on appeal. “This is due to the possibility that it does not satisfy the jurisdictional criterion, which is that a court with jurisdiction to do so would have done so by now.
There is nothing the Appeal Court, in this case, the Supreme Court, can do if the trial court’s window of opportunity has passed, he said.
Erokoro declared that any appellate court in the nation, including the Supreme Court, has 60 days to hear and decide election-related cases.
Even though the Supreme Court has the authority to hear the appeal, he said that authority would only apply to the appeal.
Two months deadline to reinstate appeal
The trial court’s jurisdiction will not be reinstated by the Supreme Court’s two-month deadline to consider the appeal, he continued.
In response to the question of whether there is a time limit for a Supreme Court to consider new evidence, Erokoro stated, “Except when it is considering cases that have been brought before it within its original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court normally does not consider new material.
It is an appeals court, and its role is to determine whether the case was fairly heard in the lower court rather than to consider new evidence.
Accepting new evidence unfair on trail court
“I’ve already explained to you that there are a few exceptions to the regulations with regard to that and those exceptions.
Outside of that, however, the Supreme Court often dislikes admitting new evidence since doing so would be unfair to the trial court, which did not hear it.
“Two, you won’t allow the opposing party the opportunity to maybe gather information that might have refuted that one.
The plan might be successful
The restrictions are therefore highly rigorous, which is why you don’t often witness it happening. Although he acknowledged that the plan might be successful, he called it “an uphill task.”
According to jerrymusa.com When questioned about the legal justifications for reviewing a case that had previously been settled by the Supreme Court, he responded that while the legal justifications are not predetermined by law, there are uniform trial procedures in Nigeria.
“One of them is whether due process was followed, admissible evidence was admitted or refused, the trial court failed to treat both sides fairly, the lower court erred in its interpretation of the applicable legislation, etc.
The grounds for appeal can be based on a wide range of scenarios, he continued.
The document hasn’t been presented
Even though Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the Peoples Democratic Party’s presidential candidate in the election on February 25, reportedly planned to submit additional evidence to the Supreme Court, Erokoro noted that the rumour was still just that—speculation.
Because I have only seen the material that has been reported in the press and because I don’t know whether the people who released the documents are willing to appear in court, there is a risk of what is known as “documentary hearsay,” he added. “This is actually within the realm of speculation.”
According to NAN, Abubakar requested permission from the Supreme Court on Friday to introduce new, additional evidence to demonstrate that President Tinubu presented a falsified certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission in order to support his eligibility for the presidency.
The evidence released to Atiku
Punch reports that Tinubu’s academic records, which were sent to him by Chicago State University on Monday, October 2, 2023, are the documents Atiku sought to tender.
According to the former vice president’s release of the 32-page documents, Judge Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division, Illinois, U.S., issued the directives.