On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled against the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Atiku Abubakar, stating that his application to submit fresh evidence in the appeal challenging President Bola Tinubu's victory violates the provisions of the Electoral Act.

The court emphasized that the Electoral Act prohibits the amendment of an election petition in such a manner, rendering Atiku's motion ineligible for approval. Justice John Okoro maintained that the designated time for presenting evidence has elapsed and cannot be extended. He further explained that the 180 days set for the hearing of election petitions is fixed and cannot be prolonged.

Justice Okoro, in delivering the judgment, prioritized evaluating the merit of Atiku and the PDP's motion to introduce fresh evidence, specifically documents from the Chicago State University concerning President Bola Tinubu's academic records.

He underscored the necessity of determining whether the nation's laws permit the court to accept new evidence at this stage of the petition. The judge then deemed Atiku's counsel's argument that the 180-day rule does not apply to the Court of Appeal sitting on the presidential election petition as "ridiculous."

"The application for fresh evidence cannot be granted. We do not have jurisdiction and there is no pleading or issue for determination in this appeal on allegation or forgery. Fresh evidence is not granted as a matter of course," Justice Okoro stated.

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant did not demonstrate diligent efforts to obtain the evidence, leading to the rejection and dismissal of the application for fresh evidence.