*Case shifted tio September 28 Alex Enumah in Abuja Hearing in the suit seeking the disqualification of President Bola Tinubu and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), from participating
*Case shifted tio September 28
Alex Enumah in Abuja
Hearing in the suit seeking the disqualification of President Bola Tinubu and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), from participating in the 2027 general elections, was on Tuesday stalled, following the insistence of the plaintiffs to personally serve the court documents on the president.
Former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar and the ADC had last month initiated legal proceedings at the Federal High Court, against Tinubu, APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), challenging the eligibility of Tinubu and the APC in next year’s general.
They predicated the suit marked FHC/ ABJ/ CS/1888/2026, on grounds that Tinubu presented forged certificate to the electoral umpire in 1999, when he first contested for the office of Governor of Lagos State.
When the matter was mentioned on Tuesday, Joseph Onu Silas, announced appearance for Atiku and ADC, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, announced appearance for Tinubu and the APC, while Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, led the INEC team.
Silas however informed the court that the plaintiffs have not been able to serve the court documents on President Tinubu and would be asking for the court’s order to do so through substituted means.
Despite claim by Popoola, that he has been mandated by Tinubu to represent him and ready to accept service on his client’s behalf, the plaintiffs turned down the offer, stating that they want to avoid technicalities issue in the future of the proceedings.
In a short ruling, trial judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo, adjourned till September 28, for hearing.
The plaintiffs by the suit are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu and APC from the 2027 presidential election on grounds of constitutional breaches.
In a 25 paragraph affidavit deposed in support of the suit, Atiku stated that Section 137 (1) (j) of the Constitution provides that “a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if – he has presented a forged certificate to the independent National Electoral Commission”.
According to the plaintiffs, INEC cannot disqualify Tinubu and APC without an order of the court.
“I know that it is very important to have the submitted FORM CF 001 of 1999 as it raises serious issues of forgery against the 1st Defendant.
“I know that in the said FORM CF 001 submitted by the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant for the 2023 and 2027 Presidential Elections, the 1st Defendant declared under oath that he participated in the compulsory National Youth
Service Corps (NYSC).
“I know that the 1st Defendant also submitted to the 3rd Defendant a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) Discharge Certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” along with the Form CF001 for the 2023 Presidential Elections, and I know that the name on the submitted NYSC certificate is not the same as Bola Ahmed Tinubu”, Atiku averred.
While alleging that the NYSC certificate the 1st defendant presented belong to one Adekunle, the plaintiffs claimed Tinubu has also submitted the said NYSC certificate to INEC ahead of the 2027 Presidential Election.
“I know that the said NYSC certificate is still in existence and in custody of
the 3rd Defendant and that same is a forgery, as the 1st Defendant’s name
is not Adekunle and yet he submitted same to the 3rd Defendant to be acted upon as genuine.
“I know that the 3rd Defendant cannot disqualify the 1st Defendant without an
order of this Honourable Court directing so”, the deponent added.
They claimed that they will be prejudiced and be subjected to an unfair
constitutional process pursuant to Section 137 (1) (j) of the Constitution, where the 1st and 2nd Defendants are not disqualified from contesting for the office of President in the 2027 General Election.
“I know that Section 29 (5) and Section 138 (1) (1) and (b) of the Electoral Act,
2026 operates to deny the Plaintiffs the right to challenge a constitutional
infraction committed by the Defendants, both as pre-election case or election petition respectively.
“I know that this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction and power to forestall the injustice that is being done to the Plaintiffs and if same is not prevented, the 1st and 2nd Defendants will breach the Constitution, to the detriment of the
Plaintiffs”, they submitted.
Among the reliefs they are seeking included a declaration that both Tinubu and Atiku are bound by the provisions of Section 137 (1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution … the breach of which attracts automatic disqualification.
“A Declaration that pursuant to the provision of Sections 29 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2026 the Plaintiffs’ right to question the qualification of the 1st Defendant in an election petition as a contestant for the same office, which is secured in Section 285 (14) (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), is being denied.
“A Declaration that the National Assembly in enacting Section 29 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2026, acted ultra vires its powers as provided in Section 139 (1)(aX) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), when it made laws confining same rights only to party aspirant(s), which constitute a denial of fairness in the electoral process.
“A Declaration that the 1st Defendant had presented a forged certificate to the 3rd Defendant when he contested for Governor of Lagos State in 1999 and thereby breached the provision of Section 137 (1) (j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
“An Order disqualifying the 1st and 2nd Defendants from participating in the 2027 Presidential Election for presenting a forged certificate to the 3rd Defendant when he (the 1st Defendant) contested for Governor of Lagos State in 1999”.
