By Fatai Abiodun
It is no longer news that the Chicago State University (CSU) has finally released the academic records of President Bola Tinubu to his political opponent, Atiku Abubakar, in line with an order of a United States court.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Nigeria’s 25 February election, had requested the documents to back his allegation of forgery of CSU certificate against Mr Tinubu. The allegation of forgery was one of those claims dismissed by Nigeria’s presidential election court in the suit Atiku filed to challenge the election of Mr Tinubu. The matter is now before the Supreme Court for final adjudication.
Furthermore, following the release of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s academic records, there are questions whether such evidence could be admissible by the Supreme Court as part of legal tussle in the adjudication of the presidential electoral dispute.
There are divided opinions on the above subject matter, some schools of thought averred that the Supreme Court is not a court of evidence and also that the Supreme Court general rules on admissibility of evidence will not be applicable because election dispute is sui-generis based on its peculiarity.
However, without prejudice to the presidential election before the Supreme Court, it is important to state that the admissibility of evidence is not subject to public opinion but on the premise of law.
Rule 41(1) of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act 2022 provides that subject to any statutory provision or any provision of these paragraphs relating to evidence, any fact required to be proved at the hearing of a petition shall be proved by written deposition and oral examination of witnesses in open court.
The answer to the question of whether the evidence in question would be admissible can be found in the provision contained in Section 1 of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides that Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereafter declared to be relevant and of no others.
The argument that the evidence of Chicago State University deposition on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s education certificate history that would be tendered by Atiku’s team is dead on arrival simply because the election case does not allow modification of brief after it has been filed is capital NO.
The entire law of evidence is dependent, to a large extent on the rules governing relevance and admissibility of evidence. Whether a piece of evidence is admissible or not is dependent on whether the fact to be established by the evidence is relevant to the facts in issue. Relevance is judged by the provisions of the Evidence Act and not by any rules of logic.
As a general rule, it is only facts which are relevant to the facts in issue that can serve as the foundation for the admissibility of a piece of evidence. In other words, evidence will be admitted only if it is relevant to the facts in issue. It should be noted that Admissibility is a question of law and it is a precondition for the reception of evidence at trial.
One fact in issue as claimed by Atiku Abubakar that President Bola Tinubu should be disqualified by virtue of Section 137(j) of the 1999 Constitution as amended on the premise that he has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The courts have held in a plethora of cases that the issue of forgery is a criminal matter and must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Forgery is an amphibious concept that embraces criminal and civil matters. The elements of alleged forgery can only be proved through admissible evidence, and such admissibility can only be admissible based on its relevancy to the matter as Atiku solidly opined.
Thus, it is safe to state that all admissible evidence is relevant but not all relevant evidence is admissible. A piece of evidence may be relevant to the issue under consideration but it can only be admitted in evidence if it passes the admissibility test. In effect, relevancy is a precursor to admissibility hence what is not relevant is not admissible.
After the evidence has been admissible by the court, it’s left for the court to assign a probative value to such a document. Evidence can be admissible and does not have any probative value. One of such element that can make evidence have less or zero probative value is if such evidence is tainted with discrepancy.
The Supreme Court as a court of justice will surely do substantial justice as constitutionally mandated. It is safe to conclude that the deposition of Chicago State University on the certificate of President Bola Tinubu will be admissible because of its relevancy to prove the facts in issue on the alleged forgery of the certificate and it left to the Tinubu and APC team to prepare a counter opposition that can affect the probative value.
Fatai Abiodun writes from Abuja.
