Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking the disqualification of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu from contesting the 2027 presidential election over an alleged certificate and name discrepancy.
Atiku personally appeared at the court registry on Friday, where he deposed to an affidavit in support of the suit instituted against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The development was contained in a statement issued by Atiku’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu.
According to the statement, the suit invokes 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 2026.
At the centre of the suit is Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution, which provides that a person is not qualified for election as 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 the 2027 presidential election over an allegation that the President presented a forged National Youth Service Corps certificate to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 elections.
Speaking after taking the oath, Atiku said his decision to appear personally was intended to underscore the seriousness of the issues before the court.
“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.”
He added, “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 an NYSC discharge certificate to INEC bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which he claimed differs from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The affidavit further alleged that the same certificate was submitted in connection with the 2027 presidential election and contended that the document was not obtained by Tinubu.
Atiku also asked INEC to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
According to the statement, Atiku had applied for certified true copies of the relevant documents before filing the suit but had not received a response when the legal processes were prepared.
Explaining the decision to seek judicial intervention, Atiku said the plaintiffs were not asking the public to determine the matter on social media.
“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.”
He added, “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.”
Beyond the certificate controversy, Atiku and the ADC are also challenging provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 which they contend restrict the ability to challenge a candidate’s qualification at the pre-election stage.
The plaintiffs also argue that legislation cannot 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.
Atiku said the case raises fundamental questions about constitutional supremacy and eligibility for public office.
“This case therefore raises a fundamental question for our democracy. 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,” he said.
The originating summons is asking the Federal High Court to determine whether the statutory restrictions complained of can prevent the plaintiffs from invoking Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution.
The plaintiffs are also seeking an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election if their case is established.
Atiku further argued that the same standards applied to ordinary Nigerians should apply to presidential candidates.
“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.”
He added, “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.”
Atiku also urged INEC to demonstrate its neutrality by making the relevant records 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.”
He said the 2027 election process must begin with clarity over the qualifications of presidential candidates.
“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.
He also defended his decision to personally depose to the affidavit, saying he was prepared to be subjected to the same constitutional standards he demanded 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.”
Atiku stressed that the case was not about personalities but 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.”
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Edwin Inegedu, SAN, and Joseph Onu Silas, also expressed confidence in the case.
Speaking on behalf of the legal team, Silas Onu said they had carefully reviewed the relevant laws and presented their arguments before the court.
He added that the team was prepared to respond to the defendants’ case once the parties were served.
