Atiku and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) recently appealed the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal’s decision to dismiss their case against President Tinubu’s declarations by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

It appears that former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s insistence on revealing President Bola Tinubu’s Chicago State University credentials is aimed at exposing his questionable past in relation to the Supreme Court.

Pedro Obaseki, Director of Research and Documentation for the Atiku/Okowa Presidential Campaign Organization, disclosed this during a zoom conference hosted by Gold Emmanuel, a psychologist based in London.

Nigerians are anxiously awaiting the release of these documents, which were ordered by Jeffrey Gilbert, the Magistrate of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to be provided to Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) based on his lawsuit. However, Tinubu has appealed this ruling, citing potential harm to his case at the Supreme Court and the risk of irreparable damage.

READ MORE: DOLLAR TO NAIRA EXCHANGE RATE

Obaseki’s Claims Precede Anticipated Release of Chicago State University (CSU) Documents, Asserts Supreme Court’s Willingness to Accept Compelling New Evidence

Obaseki, in response to the President’s assertion that the public disclosure of his CSU records would be damaging, counters, “Nigerians will be even more surprised to discover that the certificate’s owner is a woman.”

He elaborates, “We have long known this as a fact, but we seek the official release of documents by CSU.”

Obaseki believes the revelation may astonish many Nigerians but insists it will bolster Atiku’s case in the Supreme Court.

“Atiku is pushing for the open disclosure of Tinubu’s CSU documents, as it is believed the Supreme Court may consider fresh evidence in the ongoing petitions.”

“The Director of Research and Documentation for the Atiku/Okowa Presidential Campaign Organization emphasized that if compelling new factual information arises beyond what was presented in the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), the Supreme Court is obligated to consider and rule on these new legal facts.

POUNDS TO NAIRA BANK RATE? VISIT ABOKIFX RATE TODAY.

Furthermore, the Atiku/Okowa director criticized the previous PEPC judgment, stating that it seemed to involve the fabrication of evidence. He pointed out that the 1999 constitution, which serves as the foundation of the current presidential system in Nigeria, does not recognize the Federal Capital Territory as a state. He clarified that, according to the constitution, a state must have its own state assembly and governor, which Abuja, in its current form, does not possess.”

“The Federal Capital Territory (FCT), or Abuja as applicable, was designed with inspiration from Washington, United States. It was purposefully created to remain accessible to all Nigerians, encompassing regions from Niger, Kogi, Benue, and Nasarawa states. The PEPC cannot elevate it to statehood.

“The PEPC lacks the authority to clandestinely amend the 1999 constitution; proper procedures exist for such changes. This issue is paramount and should be addressed by the Supreme Court.

“President Tinubu, in his policies, has hindered Nigeria’s progress, causing economic stagnation and widespread poverty. His abrupt removal of the fuel subsidy and currency devaluation, among other measures, have adversely affected the economy.

“The Supreme Court holds the key to justice for Nigerians. We reject calls for a military coup, emphasizing that the people’s power remains the most potent force as authority truly belongs to the citizens.”

Obaseki also demanded the criminal prosecution of Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), alleging that his actions have contributed to the current challenges in Nigeria. He accused Yakubu of manipulating the electoral process in favor of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

“It’s worth noting that INEC abandoned its own recommended policies for a fair and transparent election,” Obaseki pointed out. He raised a valid question: “Isn’t it curious that two simultaneous elections occurred, with one transmitting result electronically while the other did not?”