Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar has instituted a legal action against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking his disqualification from the 2027 presidential election over alleged discrepancies involving an NYSC certificate.
Atiku personally appeared at the court registry on Friday to depose to an affidavit supporting the suit, which was filed against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The suit relies on several provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, including Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c), as well as provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
At the centre of the case is Section 137(1)(j), which provides that a person is not qualified to be elected president if the person has presented a forged certificate to INEC.
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 based on their allegation that an NYSC certificate bearing a different name was presented to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 elections.
In his affidavit, Atiku alleged that an NYSC discharge certificate submitted to INEC bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” rather than the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu. He further alleged that the document was submitted in relation to the 2027 election and maintained that it was not a certificate obtained by Tinubu.
The former vice president also asked INEC to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted for the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections. According to the affidavit, he had previously applied for certified true copies of the relevant documents but had not received a response when the suit was prepared.
Explaining his decision to personally appear at the court registry, Atiku said the matter was too important to be handled casually because it concerns constitutional requirements for the highest political office in the country.
“I have therefore put my name, my signature and my oath behind the facts we are presenting to the court,” he said, adding that Tinubu would now have an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the judiciary.
Atiku said the plaintiffs were not seeking to have the matter determined through political arguments or social media, but wanted the relevant documents produced and examined by the court.
He argued that if the certificate belongs to Tinubu, the evidence should establish that fact, while any relationship between the names “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” and “Bola Ahmed Tinubu” should also be determined through evidence presented before the court.
The plaintiffs are also challenging aspects of the Electoral Act 2026 which they contend restrict the ability of individuals to challenge a candidate’s qualification before an election.
Their argument is that ordinary legislation cannot override an express constitutional provision. They maintain that where legislation 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?”
The originating summons is asking the Federal High Court to determine whether the statutory restrictions cited by the plaintiffs can prevent them from invoking Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution.
Among the substantive reliefs being sought is an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the allegations are established before the court.
Atiku also argued that the issue should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny applied to ordinary Nigerians dealing with academic and professional certificates.
“The Presidency is not an immunity certificate against constitutional scrutiny,” he said.
The former vice president further called on INEC to provide the relevant electoral documents, arguing that the commission has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and remain neutral regardless of whose political interests may be affected.
“President Tinubu has the opportunity to defend himself. That is the constitutional process, and nobody should be afraid of it,” Atiku said.
He added that questions surrounding the qualification of presidential candidates should be resolved before the 2027 election rather than after Nigerians have cast their ballots.
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Edwin Inegedu, SAN, and Joseph Silas Onu, expressed confidence in the case. Onu said the legal team had reviewed the relevant laws and prepared its arguments, adding that they were ready to respond to the defendants’ case once served.
According to the lawyers, the case provides an opportunity for the courts to further clarify Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence.
The legal battle could add another major dimension to the emerging political contest ahead of the 2027 presidential election, with the court now expected to consider the allegations, the relevant electoral documents and the constitutional questions raised by Atiku and the ADC.
The allegations contained in the suit remain claims by the plaintiffs and have yet to be established by the court.
