Advertisement
Advertisement
Former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, Atiku Abubakar, has dragged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before the Federal High Court in Abuja, challenging his eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Mr Atiku, who personally appeared at the registry of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Friday, deposed to an affidavit in support of the suit instituted against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress, APC, and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
The suit invokes, among other provisions, Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, as well as relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
At the centre of the suit is Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution, which provides that a person is not qualified for election to the office of President if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC.
Mr Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election over allegations that the President presented a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 elections.
In his affidavit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted to INEC an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which he claimed differs from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The plaintiffs further alleged that the same NYSC certificate was submitted in connection with the 2027 presidential election and contended that the document was not obtained by Tinubu.
The allegations are now before the Federal High Court for judicial determination.
Speaking after personally taking the oath, Atiku said his decision to appear at the court registry was deliberate, given the constitutional implications of the case.
“I came here personally because the issues before the court go to the heart of our Constitution and the integrity of the office of President.
“I cannot ask Nigerians to respect the Constitution while treating a matter of this magnitude casually. I have therefore put my name, my signature and my oath behind the facts we are presenting to the court.
“Now it is President Tinubu’s turn to answer them,” he said.
Atiku also asked INEC to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
According to the affidavit, Atiku had applied for certified true copies of the relevant forms before filing the suit but had not received a response at the time the court processes were prepared.
Explaining the decision to approach the court, Atiku said the plaintiffs were not seeking to determine the issue through public debate or asking INEC to act as a judicial body.
“This is precisely why we have gone to court. We are not asking Nigerians to decide this matter on social media, and we are not asking INEC to become a court.
“We are asking the institution holding the records to produce them and the judiciary to examine the evidence and pronounce on it,” he said.
Atiku added that the court should determine whether the names “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” and “Bola Ahmed Tinubu” refer to the same person for the purpose of the disputed certificate.
“If the certificate belongs to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, let that be established before the court. If ‘Tinubu Bola Adekunle’ and ‘Bola Ahmed Tinubu’ are one and the same person for the purpose of that certificate, let the evidence establish it.
“These are questions that deserve answers, not political insults or presidential silence,” he said.
The former vice president’s case, however, goes beyond the disputed certificate.
Atiku and the ADC are also challenging provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026 which they contend restrict who can challenge the qualification of a candidate at the pre-election stage and remove qualification as a ground for questioning an election.
They argued that the provisions cannot override the Constitution, particularly Section 139(1)(a)(i), which empowers the National Assembly to make laws relating to the questioning of whether a person elected to the office of President was qualified to contest the election.
According to the plaintiffs, where an Act of the National Assembly conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail.
“This case therefore raises a fundamental question for our democracy,” Atiku said.
“Can an Act of the National Assembly be used as a shield against an express provision of the Constitution? Can we write into ordinary legislation an escape route from a constitutional standard applicable to everyone seeking the Presidency?
“Our position is that the Constitution remains supreme.”
The originating summons asks the Federal High Court to determine whether the statutory restrictions complained of can prevent the plaintiffs from invoking Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution.
The plaintiffs are also seeking an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election if their case is established.
Atiku argued that the integrity of academic and professional certificates should apply equally to all Nigerians, regardless of their position.
“Nigerian graduates cannot complete NYSC documentation with one identity and simply ask employers to ignore discrepancies. Young Nigerians seeking ordinary jobs are subjected to rigorous scrutiny of their certificates.
“The standard cannot suddenly disappear because the applicant is seeking the highest office in the land.
“The Presidency is not an immunity certificate against constitutional scrutiny,” he said.
He also called on INEC to demonstrate its neutrality by producing the relevant electoral documents in its custody.
Atiku said the electoral commission had a responsibility to uphold the Constitution irrespective of the political interests that might be affected by the case.
“INEC is holding the documents. The court has the jurisdiction to examine the issues. President Tinubu has the opportunity to defend himself.
“That is the constitutional process, and nobody should be afraid of it.
“The 2027 election must begin with clarity about the qualification of those seeking the Presidency. Nigerians should not be asked to vote first and investigate later,” he said.
Atiku said his personal appearance at the court registry to depose to the affidavit demonstrated his willingness to submit himself to the same constitutional standards he was demanding of others.
“I have sworn to my case before the law. I am prepared to be held accountable for what I have placed before the court. President Tinubu should equally be prepared to answer the case against him before the law,” he said.
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Edwin Inegedu, SAN, and Joseph Onu Silas, expressed confidence in the case.
Speaking on behalf of the legal team, Silas Onu said the lawyers had carefully reviewed the relevant laws and presented their arguments before the court.
He said the team was prepared to confront the defendants’ case once the processes were served.
“We are confident that justice will prevail. This case presents an important opportunity to further develop Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence,” he said.
Atiku maintained that the case was not about personalities or political privilege but about adherence to the Constitution.
“This is not about privilege, personalities or presidential power. It is about one Constitution and one standard for every Nigerian.
“Nobody is above the Constitution — not Atiku Abubakar, not Bola Tinubu, and certainly not the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” he said.
