Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to disqualify President Bola Ahmed Tinubu from contesting the 2027 presidential election.
Atiku personally appeared at the court registry on Friday to depose to an affidavit in support of the suit filed by him and the ADC against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The suit relies on provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, including Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c), as well as relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
At the centre of the case 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.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from the 2027 election over allegations that the President presented a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
Speaking after personally deposing to the affidavit, Atiku said his decision to appear at the registry underscored the seriousness of the case.
“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,” Atiku said, according to a statement by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu.
Atiku raises questions over NYSC certificate
In his affidavit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted an NYSC discharge certificate to INEC bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which the plaintiffs contend is different from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The affidavit further alleges that the certificate was submitted in connection with the 2027 presidential election and contends that it was not a certificate obtained by Tinubu.
The allegations have been formally placed before the Federal High Court for judicial determination.
Atiku and the ADC have also asked INEC to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
The affidavit states that 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.
“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,” Atiku said.
“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.”
Atiku challenges Electoral Act
The case also challenges provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which Atiku and the ADC argue restrict the ability of individuals to challenge the qualification of a presidential candidate at the pre-election stage.
The plaintiffs contend that ordinary 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.”
The originating summons asks the court to determine whether the statutory restrictions complained of can prevent the plaintiffs from invoking Section 137(1)(j) and, ultimately, whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the plaintiffs’ case is established.
‘Presidency is not immunity certificate’
Atiku insisted that the case was about more than the disputed certificate, arguing that Nigerians seeking public office should be subjected to the same standards applicable to ordinary citizens.
“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 said.
He also called on 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.
“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 personal appearance to depose to the affidavit demonstrated his willingness to submit himself to the same constitutional standards he was demanding from 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,” he said.
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Edwin Inegedu, SAN, and Joseph Onu Silas, Esq., 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.
“We are confident that justice will prevail. This case presents an important opportunity to further develop Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence,” he said.
“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.”
