Atiku Drags Tinubu To Court Over Alleged Certificate Forgery

Former vice president and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has dragged President Bola Tinubu before the Federal High Court in Abuja, challenging his qualification to contest the 2027 presidential election.

Atiku, who personally appeared at the court registry, deposed to an affidavit in support of the suit filed 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.

At the centre of the action is Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election over allegations that Tinubu presented a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate to INEC.

Speaking after deposing to the affidavit, Atiku said his decision to appear at the court registry was deliberate.

“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.”

In his affidavit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted to INEC an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which, according to the plaintiffs, differs from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The affidavit further alleges that the certificate was submitted in connection with the presidential election and contends that the document was not obtained by Tinubu.

The allegations have now been placed before the Federal High Court for judicial determination.

Atiku and the ADC have 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.

Phrank Shaibu, Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication to Atiku Abubakar, said the legal action was intended to allow the relevant institutions and the judiciary to determine the authenticity of the documents rather than leaving the matter to political arguments.

“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.

“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.”

Beyond the certificate issue, Atiku and the ADC are also challenging provisions of the Electoral Act which they contend restrict who may challenge the qualification of a candidate at the pre-election stage.

They also challenged what they described as the removal of qualification as a ground for questioning an election, in the context of Section 139(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution.

The plaintiffs argue that legislation cannot be used to prevent the enforcement of an express constitutional provision, maintaining that 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), and ultimately whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the plaintiffs’ case is established.

Among the substantive reliefs sought is an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election on the grounds pleaded by the plaintiff.

Atiku said the case was about maintaining the same standard of accountability for all Nigerians.

“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 also said the suit placed a responsibility on INEC to demonstrate its neutrality by making the relevant records available to the court.

His affidavit states that INEC, as a neutral public institution, is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution regardless of whose political interest may be affected.

“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 qualifications of those seeking the Presidency. Nigerians should not be asked to vote first and investigate later.”

Atiku stressed that his personal appearance to depose the affidavit demonstrated his willingness to submit himself to the same constitutional standards he demands of others.

“I have sworn 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.”

Counsel to the plaintiffs, Edwin Inegedu, SAN, and Joseph Onu Silas, Esq., expressed confidence in the case.

Speaking for the legal team, Silas Onu said they had carefully reviewed the law and placed their arguments before the court, adding that they were prepared to confront the defendants’ case once served.

“We are confident that justice will prevail. This case presents an important opportunity to further develop Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence,” he said.

The plaintiffs maintained that the case was not about personalities or political privilege, but about constitutional accountability.

“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,” the statement said.