Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has personally appeared at the Federal High Court in Abuja to depose to an affidavit challenging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
The suit, filed by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), centres on an alleged discrepancy involving an NYSC discharge certificate reportedly submitted to the electoral commission.
Atiku is relying, among other provisions, on Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, as well as provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution provides that a person shall not be qualified for election as President if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC.
Speaking after personally taking the oath at the court registry, Atiku said his presence 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 alleges that Tinubu submitted an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which the plaintiffs contend differs from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The affidavit further alleges that the same certificate was submitted in connection with the 2027 presidential election and maintains that the document was not obtained by Tinubu. The claims are now before the Federal High Court for judicial determination.
Atiku has also asked INEC to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections. According to the affidavit, he had applied for certified true copies of the relevant documents before filing the suit but had not received a response when the court processes were prepared.
Explaining the decision to approach the court, Atiku said:
“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.”
The case also challenges provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026 which, according to the plaintiffs, restrict who may challenge a candidate’s qualification at the pre-election stage.
Atiku and the ADC argue that legislation cannot prevent the enforcement of an express constitutional provision and 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.”
Among the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs is an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the allegations contained in the suit are established.
Atiku said the matter was also about ensuring that presidential candidates are subjected to the same standards as other Nigerians.
“Nobody should misunderstand what is at stake. 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 further said the case places a responsibility on INEC to demonstrate its neutrality by making the relevant documents available to the court.
“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 qualification of those seeking the Presidency. Nigerians should not be asked to vote first and investigate later.”
Atiku said his decision to personally depose to the affidavit was intended to demonstrate his willingness to submit himself to the same constitutional standards he was demanding of others.
“I have sworn to 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, expressed confidence in the case.
Speaking for the legal team, Silas Onu said:
“We are confident that justice will prevail. This case presents an important opportunity to further develop Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence.”
He added:
“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 allegations contained in the suit have not been judicially established. Tinubu, the APC and INEC will have the opportunity to respond to the claims and present their respective cases before the court.
