Today (Monday), the Supreme Court will begin hearing appeals filed by Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Mr. Peter Obi of the Labour Party, and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).

They are seeking to overturn the victory of President Bola Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

Following the affirmation of Tinubu’s victory by the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, Atiku, Obi, and the APM separately lodged appeals at the apex court, aiming to invalidate the outcome of the February 25 presidential election.

The Supreme Court officially notified all parties involved of the hearing date last Thursday.

Atiku and Obi challenged the tribunal’s verdict and subsequently filed appeals at the Supreme Court. Atiku also sought permission to present a copy of Tinubu’s academic records from the Chicago State University (CSU), USA, which he claimed demonstrated that Tinubu submitted a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

In addition, the former vice president is attempting to obtain a court order from Washington, D.C. to compel the FBI to release documents related to President Tinubu’s $460,000 forfeiture case.

Tinubu had previously requested the Supreme Court to disregard his academic records from the Chicago State University, which were attached by Atiku Abubakar. He argued that this discovery was not part of the record or judgment of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal, urging the apex court not to admit it.

Tinubu further contended that Atiku had a habit of filing petitions first and then searching for evidence, accusing him of doing the same in his appeal against the tribunal’s judgment. Tinubu’s legal team, led by Wole Olanipekun, SAN, stated that the allegations of discrepancies in his credentials were fabricated by the PDP candidate.

There is speculation regarding whether the Supreme Court will admit the fresh evidence or not. However, legal practitioner Mathew Abakpa from Rivers State suggested that admitting Atiku’s fresh evidence is legally possible. He emphasized that the subsequent actions taken by the Supreme Court with regard to the evidence remain uncertain.