Chicago court reserves ruling in Atiku, CSU, Tinubu’s case amid flood of email by interlopers

Justice Nancy Maldonado of the District Court of Northern Illinois District has reserved ruling in the case of Atiku Abubakar against Chicago State University, seeking the records President Bola Tinubu.

Tinubu, as an intervenor, dragged Atiku to the court, requesting the judge to cancel the order by Magistrate judge Jeffery Gilbert, asking the university to release Tinubu’s records.

With submissions by Tinubu and Atiku’s lawyers made, the Court said it will now proceed to issue a written ruling as soon as possible.

But Judge Nancy Maldonado also noted the deluge of emotional emails by interlopers, mounting pressure on the court in support of Atiku.

But the judge dashed their hopes as the email will count for nothing in her judgment.

“Separately, the Court notes that Court staff has received extensive email communications from members of the public related to this case.

“The Court understands the significant public interest in this dispute, but the Court will not consider any third−party or ex parte submissions.

“Rather, the Court’s review will be limited to the parties’ briefing and the official record on the docket.”

P.M.News learnt that supporters of Atiku and Peter Obi were the people who had bombarded the court with email, including sending the certified copy of the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court to Judge Nancy Maldonado.

Atiku’s lawyers brought an application under U.S.C. 1782 for the magistrate court’s assistance to obtain evidence from CSU by way of Subpoena regarding Tinubu’s academic records.

Tinubu’s lawyers argued that Atiku should not be given access to the records

Tinubu’s lawyers opposed the issuing of subpoena to obtain his academic records primarily on three grounds:

One is that the documents are protected by FERPA (Federal Educational Rights Protection Act).

Two, Atiku did not plead any facts relating to whether Tinubu attended or graduated from CSU in his Petition at the Election Tribunal and as such any information that he obtained will not be admissible.

Three, Atiku’s petition at the Election Tribunal had gone beyond the ‘evidentiary stage’ in that parties had adopted their processes and all that remained for the Tribunal to do was to deliver judgment. The Tribunal could no longer admit evidence.

While Atiku’s application was pending, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment. The judgment was against Atiku and in favour of Tinubu.

The Magistrate Judge to whom the case was assigned scheduled hearing of the case for September 11th, 2023.

At the hearing, Atiku’s lawyers contended that they needed the documents for Atiku’s use at the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

Tinubu’s lawyers countered that not only are the documents protected by FERPA, they can not use them at the Supreme Court because they were not pleaded in the Petition as required by the Electoral Act.

CSU informed the Court that Tinubu graduated from CSU and that the school does not have a copy of the Diploma that Tinubu allegedly submitted to INEC and so was not in a position to speak on the veracity or otherwise of the document.

CSU counsel further told the court that the school, like most schools in America, does not keep copies of Diplomas that it issued to its students.

In his ruling, Magistrate Judge Gilbert ordered CSU to respond to a limited portion of Atiku’s subpoena within 48 hours.

Tinubu filed an emergency motion before Judge Nancy Maldonado to stop the ruling taking effect on the ground that the Magistrate Judge did not have the power to make the order it made.

The lawyers contended that Gilbert could only have made a recommendation to the Supervising Judge, who may then affirm or modify or reject it outrightly while proceeding to hear the application afresh.

Tinubu’s prayer was granted by Judge Nancy Maldonado. The Order of Magistrate Judge Gilbert was stayed and the Judge decided to hear the application afresh.

Judge Maldonado then directed Tinubu’s lawyers to file papers on their client’s behalf not later than 9am Monday, September, 25th on why a subpoena should not issued against CSU to release some of Asiwaju’s documents.

This was done by the lawyers.

Atiku’s lawyers responded on Wednesday.

Tinubu’s replied on Thursday, September 28th.

Now, with all the submissions made, the parties are expecting ruling any time.