This directive was delivered on Tuesday, September 19, 2023, in the legal battle between Abubakar Atiku and President Tinubu.
Judge Gilbert, a respected U.S. magistrate judge, mandated CSU to furnish "all relevant and non-privileged documents" to Abubakar Atiku, the plaintiff, within a strict two-day timeframe.
This ruling has been hailed as a victory for Atiku, who has persistently sought access to the educational history of President Tinubu. However, analysts suggest that Atiku might not gain access to more than what CSU has already publicly disclosed.
Tinubu's legal team has vehemently argued that their client is determined to uphold his right to privacy. It's worth noting that the ruling specifies the release of "non-privileged documents," acknowledging the importance of personal privacy.
The University, in its testimony before the court, consistently affirmed that Bola Tinubu attended the institution and successfully graduated in 1979.
However, it appears that Atiku's quest for information has its limits. According to @Renerodrig1142, an observer closely following the case, "Atiku will not receive a copy of any certificate from the US. He is only left with a copy of Tinubu's academic records, including the admission letter and exam sheets."
In a further update, @Renerodrig1142 argued, "There is no new information coming forth. Jamar Orr will orally state that he certified those documents and handed them over to Tinubu's lawyer. This settlement holds no relevance to the case in Nigeria, making it a total waste of effort."
Just yesterday, Atiku approached the Supreme Court, fervently seeking to overturn the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), which had, on September 6, affirmed Tinubu's electoral victory.
Chief Chris Uche, SAN, Atiku's lead counsel, filed the Notice of Appeal, urging the apex court to nullify the entirety of the tribunal's findings and conclusions, arguing that they did not accurately represent the essence of Atiku's petition.
Atiku, the former Vice President, contends that the tribunal erred in law by not annulling the presidential election held on February 25. He asserts that INEC conducted the election in flagrant non-compliance with the Electoral Act of 2022, based on "grave and gross misrepresentation" and the "doctrine of legitimate expectation."