President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress, APC, have asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress, ADC, over an alleged forged National Youth Service Corps, NYSC, discharge certificate.
Atiku and the ADC, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, sued Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, alleging that the president presented a forged NYSC discharge certificate to the electoral body.
The plaintiffs are seeking an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election over the allegation.
However, in a joint counter affidavit filed on September 9, Tinubu and the APC denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC in connection with either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
The APC Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, who deposed to the counter affidavit dated September 8, also argued that Tinubu did not submit Form CF001 to INEC for either election as claimed by the plaintiffs.
“The 1st defendant (Tinubu) emphatically denies the plaintiffs’ allegation of forgery and submission of forged certificate to the 3rd defendant, INEC, for 2023 or 2027 presidential elections,” Samaila stated.
He further argued that the NYSC had never denied issuing a discharge certificate to Tinubu at the end of his service year.
According to him, none of the documents submitted by Tinubu to INEC for the 2023 and forthcoming 2027 presidential elections was forged.
Samaila said Tinubu’s educational qualifications and NYSC discharge certificate were accepted by INEC, which subsequently published his name and particulars as the APC presidential candidate for the 2023 election and the party’s candidate for the 2027 election.
The APC legal director also maintained that no constitutional provision had been violated and that Atiku and the ADC had not suffered any injustice as a result of the submission of Tinubu’s personal particulars to INEC.
Also Read: Atiku challenges Tinubu’s 2027 eligibility over NYSC
He argued that Atiku was neither a member of the APC nor an aspirant in the party’s presidential primary election in which Tinubu emerged as its candidate.
Samaila said the plaintiffs were therefore not in a position to challenge the internal process through which the APC selected and nominated its presidential candidate.
“The plaintiffs are not in this suit alleging any breach of the provisions of the Electoral Act or the 1999 Constitution by the 1st and 2nd defendants but they are only complaining about the nomination and submission of the name of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant INEC for the coming 2027 presidential election,” he said.
He added that Atiku and the ADC were not challenging any decision, action or activity of INEC in the suit.
Samaila further said the APC submitted the names of its candidates for the 2027 presidential and other elections to INEC through a letter dated June 26.
He said INEC subsequently acknowledged receipt of Tinubu’s profile as the party’s presidential candidate on July 11.
In a written address accompanying the application, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, raised several objections to the originating summons filed by Atiku and the ADC.
Olujinmi argued that the allegation of forgery amounted to a criminal allegation and therefore had to be established in accordance with the required standard of proof.
He cited Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act and argued that allegations of forgery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The senior lawyer also relied on previous Supreme Court decisions, arguing that where a certificate is alleged to be forged, evidence from the institution said to have issued the document is critical to establishing the allegation.
“It is a settled law that the evidence required to prove that a certificate is forged is a disclaimer from the institution that is said to have issued the certificate,” he argued.
According to Olujinmi, Atiku and the ADC had not presented evidence from the NYSC Directorate disclaiming the issuance of the discharge certificate to Tinubu.
He also said the plaintiffs had not produced the original document from which the alleged forgery was made or the document they claimed was forged.
The lawyer maintained that the burden of proving the allegations rested on Atiku and the ADC because they were seeking declaratory reliefs from the court.
He argued that declaratory relief could not be granted automatically and that the plaintiffs were required to establish their claims with sufficient evidence.
Olujinmi further described the questions raised by the plaintiffs for determination as hypothetical and academic, arguing that the suit was not based on facts capable of establishing an actual infringement of their rights.
He also challenged the timing of some of the reliefs sought by Atiku and the ADC, arguing that one of the claims was statute-barred.
According to him, the plaintiffs should have challenged the alleged submission of the certificates within the period prescribed by law but failed to do so. He therefore argued that the relevant relief, as well as another relief attached to it, should be struck out.
The senior lawyer also contended that the suit was incompetent because it amounted to a pre-election matter that did not satisfy the constitutional and statutory requirements for such cases.
He referred to Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2026, arguing that only an aspirant who participated in a political party’s primary can challenge the conduct of that primary under the relevant provisions.
Olujinmi consequently argued that Atiku and the ADC lacked the legal standing to challenge the emergence of Tinubu as the APC’s presidential candidate because neither participated in the APC primary.
He cited a previous Supreme Court position describing persons without the requisite legal interest in another party’s internal affairs as parties who should not interfere in matters that do not directly affect their interests.
The lawyer also argued that the suit was improperly constituted because the plaintiffs challenged the validity of provisions of the Electoral Act without joining the National Assembly, which enacted the law.
He further said the Attorney-General should have been joined because of the constitutional authority of the office to represent the state in relevant legal proceedings.
Olujinmi therefore urged the Federal High Court to uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss Atiku and the ADC’s suit in its entirety.
The matter is currently before Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The court has fixed September 28 for hearing.
