Renowned lawyer, Robert Clarke SAN has said that the former Vice President and Presidential Candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP,Atiku Abubakar never had a case against Tinubu in the court of law as he tried to make Nigerians to believe in his petitions.
Clarke who spoke during the Morning Show program of Arise TV on Friday in reaction to the Supreme Court’s judgement affirming Tinubu’s election said that Atiku has been fighting Tinubu for over 20 years within which if he had evidence against the president he would have presented it .
The elder statesman said the Court’s affirmation on Thursday has put to rest the 2023 election issue attributing some issues like the pursuit of fresh evidence at the Chicago State University CSU as the penchant for making quick money by lawyers and the propensity by corrupt politicians to freely dispense the ill-gotten wealth they acquired over the years.
The senior advocate said given his experience in law,he would never had encourage Atiku to go to court or present fresh evidence against Tinubu since knowing that it would not result in anything.
“I Robert Clarke would not take a brief from Atiku” to present fresh evidence of forgery against Tinubu in the Supreme Court knowing that it won’t fly because the Supreme Court which is an appellate court will not entertain it because of the issue of jurisdiction which the apex court admitted that it lacked.
He said “Jurisdiction is the bedrock of any court adding you can’t put something on nothing.
On Thursday , October 26, the Supreme Court gave judgement in a series of appeal by Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, the Labour party LP presidential candidate seeking to nullify the election of Bola Tinubu as president.
The panel of 7 justices headed by Justice Inyang Okoro clinically dismissed the petitions for lacking in merit .
