The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit filed by former Vice-President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, seeking the disqualification of President Bola Tinubu over an alleged forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate.
INEC, in a counter-affidavit filed through its legal team led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Dr Alex Izinyon, argued that the suit amounted to a gross abuse of judicial process and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action against the electoral commission.
The commission further contended that Atiku lacked the locus standi, or legal standing, to institute the action, maintaining that the issues raised were hypothetical and academic and should therefore be dismissed in their entirety.
The counter-affidavit was supported by a separate affidavit deposed to by Ayuba Mohammed, an Administrative Officer in INEC’s Litigation and Prosecution Department.
While the electoral body did not take a position on the authenticity or otherwise of Tinubu’s educational credentials, it told the court that its constitutional responsibility does not include nominating candidates for political parties or originating, manufacturing or procuring certificates and other credentials submitted by candidates or the parties sponsoring them.
INEC maintained that, in carrying out its constitutional and statutory duties, it receives documents submitted by candidates and processes them in accordance with the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the Electoral Act 2026, as well as applicable regulations and guidelines.
It also rejected any suggestion that receiving a document from a candidate amounts to a judicial or administrative determination by the commission that every statement or credential contained in the document is authentic.
The commission said the Constitution itself provides the qualifications and disqualifications applicable to candidates seeking elective office.
“That in answer to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Plaintiffs’ Affidavit, section 137 of the Constitution speaks for itself and applies in accordance with its terms to a person who is proved, in accordance with law, to have presented a forged certificate to the 3rd Defendant,” INEC’s deponent stated.
“That the 3rd Defendant denies any suggestion that a mere allegation that a forged certificate was presented, without proof of the fact of presentation and of the alleged forgery, automatically activates the constitutional disqualification prescribed by section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution.
“That in respect of the 2027 Presidential Election, the 2nd Defendant submitted the name and particulars of the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant as its nominated Presidential Candidate in accordance with the prescribed nomination process,” he averred.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, is before Justice Inyang Ekwo, who has fixed September 28 for further proceedings.
Atiku and the ADC are listed as the plaintiffs, while Tinubu, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC are the first to third defendants respectively.
In his 25-paragraph affidavit filed in support of the suit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted a bogus NYSC discharge certificate to INEC in support of his qualification to contest the presidential election.
Atiku further alleged that Tinubu provided false information about himself in the Form CF001 submitted to INEC, drawing the court’s attention to the name appearing on the NYSC certificate, which he said reads “Tinubu Bola Adekunle.”
“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,” Atiku averred.
The former Vice-President also alleged that Tinubu had been using the disputed certificate since 1999, when he contested the Lagos State governorship election.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to determine whether, in view of the limitations contained in Section 138(1)(a) and (b) of the Electoral Act 2026 and Section 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, they could enforce Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution against Tinubu.
They specifically asked the court to determine:
“Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants should be disqualified for presenting a forged NYSC certificate to the 3rd Defendant for the 2023 and 2027 Presidential Elections, in breach of section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended).”
If the court answers the questions in their favour, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that Tinubu presented a forged certificate to INEC when he contested for governor of Lagos State in 1999, allegedly breaching 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 grounds that the disputed certificate was allegedly presented to INEC when Tinubu contested the Lagos governorship election in 1999.
INEC’s latest filing therefore sets up a fresh legal battle over the competence of Atiku’s case and the evidentiary burden required to establish the alleged forgery, ahead of the September 28 proceedings before Justice Ekwo.
