The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Tuesday fixed September 28 for further proceedings on the suit seeking to stop President Bola Tinubu from seeking re-election in 2027 over alleged certificate forgery.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was brought before the court by a former vice president and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar.
While the ADC was joined as the 2nd plaintiff, President Tinubu, his political party the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were listed as 1st to 3rd defendants, respectively.
Specifically, Atiku, in a 25-paragraph affidavit he personally deposed to in support of the suit, alleged that President Tinubu submitted a bogus National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to INEC in aid of his qualification for the presidential seat.
Insisting that President Tinubu gave false information about himself in the Form CF0001 he tendered before INEC, the plaintiffs drew the court’s attention to the fact that the NYSC certificate he submitted to the electoral body bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”.
“I know that the NYSC certificate is clearly not one obtained by the 1st defendant, as it belongs to one Adekunle.
“The said NYSC certificate, bearing the name Tinubu Bola Adekunle, is herein attached and marked as Exhibit P2.
“I know that the said NYSC certificate is still in existence and in the custody of the 3rd defendant (INEC) and that it is a forgery, as the 1st defendant’s name is not Adekunle, and yet he submitted it to the 3rd defendant to be acted upon as genuine,” Atiku averred.
He told the court that Tinubu had been parading the forged certificate since 1999, when he contested the Lagos State governorship election.
Atiku therefore urged the court, among others, to determine “Whether, in view of the limitations in sections 138(1)(a) & (b) of the Electoral Act, 2026, and section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), the Plaintiffs will not be allowed to enforce the binding provision of section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), which applies, mutatis mutandis, to all candidates aspiring to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
As well as “Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants should be disqualified for presenting a forged NYSC certificate to the 3rd Defendant for the 2023 and 2027 Presidential Elections, in breach of Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”
Upon a positive determination of the legal questions, the plaintiffs sought a “declaration that the 1st Defendant presented a forged certificate to the 3rd Defendant when he contested for Governor of Lagos State in 1999 and thereby breached the provision of section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)”.
Likewise, “An order disqualifying the 1st and 2nd Defendants from participating in the 2027 Presidential Election for presenting a forged certificate to the 3rd Defendant when the 1st Defendant contested for Governor of Lagos State in 1999.”
Meanwhile, when the case was called up on Tuesday, a team of lawyers led by Mr Omosanya Popoola announced their appearance for President Tinubu, whom Atiku’s lawyer, Mr Joseph Onu, said they had been unable to serve with a copy of the suit.
Despite Popoola’s assurance that President Tinubu had given him the authority to represent him, Onu, however, insisted that, owing to the sensitive nature of the case, his client would prefer to effect personal service of the process or secure an order for substituted service.
“My lord, this is a very important case, and we do not want to leave any chance for a technicality. We do not want to fall into any trap.
“But if we have a written undertaking from the 1st defendant to be served through counsel, we will accept,” Onu insisted.
For his part, INEC’s lawyer, Dr Alex Iziyon, SAN, urged the court to dismiss Atiku’s insistence on personal service of the processes on Tinubu, arguing that the appearance of his counsel was a sufficient undertaking.
Noting that over 17 days had passed since the case was filed before the court, INEC demanded an expedited hearing, saying it was ready to file its defence within 10 days.
After listening to all the parties, Justice Inyang Ekwo held that he could not dictate to the plaintiffs how to conduct their case.
Consequently, he adjourned the matter for mention.
However, the court vowed to take drastic action against any party that discussed details of the pending case in the media.
“This case is to be conducted in the court and not in the media, whether it is regular or social.
“If this case is discussed on social media, I will hold counsel for the party responsible, and I will take very drastic action,” Justice Ekwo warned.
