By Ikechukwu Samuel
Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has dragged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu before the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking his disqualification from the 2027 presidential election over an alleged discrepancy involving an NYSC certificate.
Atiku, who personally appeared at the court registry on Friday to depose to an affidavit supporting the suit, also asked the court to disqualify the All Progressives Congress (APC) from participating in the election if the allegations against Tinubu are established.
The suit, filed by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), centres on Section 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person is not qualified for election as President if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC.
At the centre of the plaintiffs’ case is an NYSC discharge certificate allegedly submitted to INEC in the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, rather than Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Atiku and the ADC contend that the certificate was not obtained by Tinubu and that the alleged discrepancy raises questions about the President’s qualification to contest the 2027 presidential election.
The plaintiffs have, however, placed the matter before the court for judicial determination, rather than asking Nigerians to determine the allegation through political debate or social media.
Atiku said his decision to personally depose to the affidavit was intended to demonstrate the seriousness with which he regarded the constitutional issues raised by 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,” Atiku said.
“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.”
The former vice president is also seeking access to documents held by INEC which, he argues, could help establish the facts surrounding the disputed certificate.
Specifically, the suit asks INEC to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
According to Atiku’s affidavit, he had previously applied to INEC for certified true copies of the relevant form but had not received a response when the court processes were prepared.
Atiku said the request was not an attempt to turn INEC into an adjudicating body, but to compel the electoral commission to produce records in its custody so that the judiciary could determine the dispute.
“We are asking the institution holding the records to produce them and the judiciary to examine the evidence and pronounce on it,” he said.
“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.”
The suit also challenges aspects of the Electoral Act, 2026 which Atiku and the ADC argue could restrict challenges to a candidate’s qualification at the pre-election stage.
The plaintiffs contend that ordinary legislation cannot override an express constitutional provision and argue that where the Electoral Act 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? … Our position is that the Constitution remains supreme.”
Among the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs is an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the court finds that the allegations pleaded against them have been established.
Atiku also framed the case as a question of equal constitutional standards, arguing that candidates seeking the highest political office should not be exempted from scrutiny over their credentials.
“Nigerian graduates cannot complete NYSC documentation with one identity and simply ask employers to ignore discrepancies,” he said.
“The Presidency is not an immunity certificate against constitutional scrutiny.”
He further urged INEC to demonstrate its neutrality by producing the relevant records.
“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,” Atiku said.
“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.”
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Edwin Inegedu, SAN, and Joseph Onu Silas, expressed confidence in the case.
Silas said the legal team had carefully reviewed the relevant laws and was prepared to respond to 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.
Atiku maintained that the case was not about personalities or political privilege, but about whether constitutional standards should apply equally to every presidential candidate.
“This is not about privilege, personalities or presidential power. It is about one Constitution and one standard for every Nigerian,” he said.
“Nobody is above the Constitution — not Atiku Abubakar, not Bola Tinubu, and certainly not the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
