Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress ADC)l, Atiku Abubakar, on Friday personally appeared at the Registry of the Federal High Court, Abuja, where he deposed to an affidavit in support of a suit challenging the qualification of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to contest the 2027 presidential election.
This is contained in a statement issued by the Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication to Atiku Abubakar, Phrank Shaibu.
According to the statement, the action, instituted by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC, invokes, among other provisions, Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
The statement explained that at the heart of the action is Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC, noting that the suit specifically asks the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from the 2027 presidential election over the plaintiffs’ allegation that Tinubu presented a forged NYSC certificate to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
Speaking after personally taking the oath, Atiku said his presence at the court registry was deliberate.
“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,” Shabby quoted him as saying.
In his affidavit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted to INEC an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which, according to the plaintiffs, is different from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The affidavit further alleges that the same NYSC certificate was submitted in connection with the 2027 presidential election and contends that the document is not a certificate obtained by Tinubu.
The statement disclosed that Atiku has also placed INEC on notice to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections, stating that he had applied for certified true copies of the relevant form before filing the suit but had received no response at the time the 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.
“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,” he added.
Beyond the certificate matter, the statement noted that Atiku and the ADC are also challenging provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which, according to their written address, effectively restrict who may challenge the qualification of a candidate at pre-election stage and the removal of qualification as a ground for questioning an election as envisaged by Section 139(a)(i) of the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly to make laws allowing the questioning of whether a person elected into the office of President is qualified.
Their argument, the statement said, is that legislation cannot be used to shut the door against enforcement of an express constitutional provision, contending 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. 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,” Atiku said.