2027: Court orders Tinubu served with Atiku’s suit seeking disqualification

By Johnson Arua

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ordered that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu be served within seven days with a suit seeking his disqualification from the 2027 presidential election over an alleged forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate.

Justice Inyang Ekwo gave the order on Wednesday after approving substituted service of the originating processes on the President through his political party, the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The order followed a motion moved by counsel to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Mr Olanrewaju Omotayo-Ojo, who stood in for Mr Silas Onu, said to be bereaved.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was instituted by Atiku, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate in the 2023 election, with the ADC joined as the second plaintiff.

President Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are listed as the first to third defendants respectively.

In a 25-paragraph affidavit personally deposed to in support of the action, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC as part of the documents used to establish his qualification to contest the presidential election.

Atiku further alleged that Tinubu supplied false information in Form CF0001 submitted to INEC, contending that the NYSC certificate attached to the electoral documents bore the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle.”

According to him, the certificate did not belong to the President because “the 1st defendant's name is not Adekunle,” yet it was allegedly presented to INEC as genuine.

Atiku averred: “I know that the NYSC certificate is clearly not one obtained by the 1st defendant, as it belongs to one Adekunle.

“The said NYSC certificate, bearing the name Tinubu Bola Adekunle, is herein attached and marked as Exhibit P2.

“I know that the said NYSC certificate is still in existence and in the custody of the 3rd defendant (INEC), and that it is a forgery, as the 1st defendant's name is not Adekunle, and yet he submitted it to the 3rd defendant to be acted upon as genuine.”

The former Vice President further claimed that Tinubu had allegedly been parading the certificate since 1999, when he contested the Lagos State governorship election.

Consequently, the plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether, in view of Section 138(1)(a) and (b) of the Electoral Act 2026 and Section 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, they can enforce Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution against the defendants.

They are also asking the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election for allegedly presenting a forged NYSC certificate to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 elections.

Among other reliefs, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that Tinubu presented a forged certificate to INEC when he contested the Lagos State governorship election in 1999 and thereby breached Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution.

They are also seeking an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election on the basis of the alleged certificate submission.

The court had earlier fixed September 28 for the commencement of the substantive hearing.

INEC has, however, filed processes challenging the competence of the suit and urged the court to dismiss the action.

Meanwhile, a fresh legal development has emerged over the representation of President Tinubu in the case, with two Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Chief Akin Olujinmi and Chief Wole Olanipekun, separately filing processes on behalf of the first defendant.

Both senior lawyers challenged the competence of Atiku's suit and his locus standi to question the credentials submitted by Tinubu to INEC, relying, among other provisions, on Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2026.

In his counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Tinubu, Olujinmi argued that the suit was statute-barred, contending that the documents in question were submitted to INEC before August 1 and that the 14-day period prescribed for instituting such an action had elapsed.

He also argued that Atiku, as a member of the ADC, lacked the legal standing to challenge what was done by the APC.

Olanipekun, who also identified himself as counsel to President Tinubu, filed a preliminary objection and counter-affidavit seeking the dismissal of the suit, describing it as incompetent and an abuse of court process.

In a September 10 letter addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, Olanipekun said he had been briefed by Tinubu to lead a team of lawyers to represent and defend his interests in the matter.

He said that although reports of the suit had emerged in August, the President had not been personally served with the originating processes.

According to the letter, Tinubu became aware that the matter was scheduled for mention on September 1 and subsequently instructed his legal team to appear on his behalf.

Olanipekun said a member of the team, Prince Omosanya Popoola, SAN, appeared in court on that date and sought to collect the processes filed by the plaintiffs.

He said the plaintiffs' counsel objected to the request, adding that Tinubu had remained unserved with the originating processes as of the date of the letter.

The senior lawyer consequently requested that the court provide his team with either the service copy of the originating processes or certified true copies to enable the President to respond to the suit.

He said the request was intended to safeguard Tinubu's right to fair hearing and demonstrate that the President had “nothing to hide.”

The plaintiffs have also applied to amend portions of their originating processes, particularly the reference to the INEC form to which the alleged certificates were attached.

They are seeking to correct the form described in the suit as Form CF001 to Form EC9.