Former Vice President 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 forged National Youth Service Corps certificate.
Atiku, who is the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, personally appeared at the court registry on Friday to depose to an affidavit in support of the suit filed against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The suit is based on provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the Electoral Act 2026.
At the centre of the case is Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution, which states that a person shall not be qualified for election as President if he has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to determine whether Tinubu should be disqualified from contesting the 2027 presidential election if it is established that he submitted a forged NYSC certificate in connection with his presidential candidacy.
The former vice president’s legal challenge is the latest major dispute to emerge ahead of the 2027 presidential election, which is already shaping up as a major political contest.
According to Atiku’s affidavit, the NYSC discharge certificate allegedly submitted to INEC bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, rather than the President’s name, “Bola Ahmed Tinubu”.
The plaintiffs also alleged that the certificate was not obtained by Tinubu and was submitted in connection with his 2027 presidential election bid.
However, the allegations have not been established by any court. The Federal High Court is now being asked to examine the disputed document, determine its authenticity and decide whether it has any legal effect on Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the presidential election.
Atiku is also asking the court to compel INEC to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted for the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
Form CF001 is the document candidates submit to INEC as part of the nomination process. It contains important information and documents relating to a candidate’s qualification for an election.
Atiku said he had earlier requested certified true copies of the relevant documents from INEC but did not receive them before the legal action was filed.
Explaining why he personally went to the court registry to depose to the affidavit, Atiku said the issues involved were too important to be treated lightly.
“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,” he said.
Atiku added that he had placed his name, signature and oath behind the facts presented in the case and expected Tinubu to respond through the legal process.
He stressed that the matter should not be settled through political arguments or exchanges on social media.
“We are not asking Nigerians to decide this matter on social media, and we are not asking INEC to become a court,” Atiku said.
He explained that the plaintiffs were asking INEC to produce the records in its custody and the judiciary to examine the evidence and make a decision.
A major issue in the case is the name appearing on the disputed NYSC certificate.
Atiku questioned whether the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” could legally be attributed to President Tinubu, whose known name is Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
“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,” he said.
The case also challenges provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 which Atiku and the ADC argue could restrict the ability of candidates or political parties to challenge the qualification of presidential candidates before an election.
The plaintiffs contend that ordinary legislation cannot prevent the enforcement of constitutional provisions dealing with the qualifications of presidential candidates.
Their argument is based on the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, where any law made by the National Assembly is inconsistent with the Constitution, the constitutional provision should prevail.
Atiku described the issue as an important test for Nigeria’s democracy.
He asked whether an Act of the National Assembly could be used to prevent the enforcement of a clear constitutional requirement relating to those seeking the presidency.
The plaintiffs are therefore asking the Federal High Court to determine whether the restrictions they complained about in the Electoral Act can stop them from relying on Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution.
Among the reliefs being sought is an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the allegations concerning the disputed certificate are established.
Atiku said the issue of the authenticity of a certificate should not be treated differently because the person involved is President of Nigeria.
“The presidency is not an immunity certificate against constitutional scrutiny,” he said.
He also called on INEC to demonstrate its neutrality by releasing the relevant electoral records.
According to him, the electoral commission is in possession of the documents, the court has the power to examine the issues, while Tinubu has the opportunity to defend himself.
Atiku said Nigerians should have clear information about the eligibility of presidential candidates before voting in 2027.
“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,” he said.
The legal challenge comes against the background of the long-running political and legal disputes over Tinubu’s academic and identity records.
Questions concerning the President’s records have featured in political debates and court cases in previous election cycles. Tinubu has consistently maintained his eligibility and has successfully defended challenges to his qualification in previous proceedings.
The new suit, however, places the alleged NYSC certificate directly before the Federal High Court and seeks to obtain relevant documents from INEC.
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Edwin Inegedu, SAN, and Joseph Onu Silas, expressed confidence in their case.
Silas said the legal team had reviewed the relevant laws and presented its arguments before the court. He added that they were prepared to respond to the case of the defendants after they were served with the court papers.
“We are confident that justice will prevail. This case presents an important opportunity to further develop Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence,” he said.
The suit has now placed Tinubu’s eligibility, the disputed NYSC document and INEC’s custody of presidential nomination records under fresh legal scrutiny.
The President and the other defendants will have the opportunity to respond to the allegations and present their own evidence before the court.
The outcome could have wider implications for the 2027 presidential election, particularly on how constitutional qualification requirements and pre-election challenges are handled.
For Atiku, the case is about ensuring that the same constitutional standards apply to every person seeking the highest political office in the country.
“Nobody is above the Constitution, not Atiku Abubakar, not Bola Tinubu, and certainly not the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” he said.
The court will now be expected to consider the issues raised by the plaintiffs and determine the legal questions surrounding the disputed certificate, Tinubu’s eligibility and the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.