President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) have asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit filed by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) seeking to stop Tinubu from contesting the 2027 presidential election.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, centres on allegations by Atiku and the ADC that Tinubu presented a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The plaintiffs are seeking, among other reliefs, an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
But in their latest response, Tinubu and the APC rejected the allegation and urged Justice Inyang Ekwo to throw out the case on several legal grounds.
In a joint counter affidavit dated September 8, the APC Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, who deposed to the document, maintained that Tinubu did not submit any forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential election.
“The 1st defendant (Tinubu) emphatically denies the plaintiffs’ allegation of forgery and submission of forged certificate to the 3rd defendant (INEC) for 2023 or 2027 presidential elections,” Samaila stated.
He further argued that the NYSC had never disowned the discharge certificate attributed to Tinubu.
“None of the documents Tinubu submitted to the INEC for the 2023 and the coming 2027 presidential elections was forged,” he said.
Samaila added that Tinubu’s educational qualifications and NYSC discharge certificate had been accepted by INEC, which subsequently published his name and particulars as the APC presidential candidate for the 2023 election and the forthcoming 2027 election.
The APC legal director also challenged Atiku and the ADC’s right to question Tinubu’s emergence as the APC presidential candidate, arguing that neither Atiku nor the ADC participated in the party’s presidential primary.
He said Atiku was not an APC member and did not participate in the party’s primary election held in May, during which Tinubu emerged as its presidential candidate.
According to Samaila, the plaintiffs were not alleging that Tinubu or the APC breached any specific provision of the Electoral Act or the 1999 Constitution in the nomination process.
“The plaintiffs are not in this suit alleging any breach of the provisions of the Electoral Act or the 1999 Constitution by the 1st and 2nd defendants but they are only complaining about the nomination and submission of the name of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant (INEC) for the coming 2027 presidential election,” he said.
“The plaintiffs are also not challenging any decision, action or activity of INEC in this suit,” he added.
Samaila disclosed that the APC submitted the names of its candidates for the 2027 elections to INEC through a letter dated June 26. He said INEC subsequently acknowledged receipt of Tinubu’s profile as the party’s presidential candidate on July 11.
The APC’s position was further supported by arguments contained in a written address filed by its lawyer, Chief Akin Olujimi.
Olujimi argued that Atiku and the ADC had failed to provide the type of evidence required to establish an allegation of forgery.
He pointed out that forgery is a criminal allegation and must therefore be proved to the required standard.
“It is a settled law that the evidence required to prove that a certificate is forged is a disclaimer from the institution that issued the certificate,” the lawyer said.
According to him, the absence of a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued a document makes it difficult to establish that the document is forged.
He also relied on a previous Supreme Court decision which, according to him, requires the production of both the original document from which an alleged forgery was made and the purported forged document when forgery is being established.
Olujimi argued that Atiku and the ADC had not produced a disclaimer from the NYSC stating that the agency did not issue the certificate attributed to Tinubu.
He also said the plaintiffs had not produced the original document from which the alleged forgery was made or the alleged forged NYSC discharge certificate.
“We submit further that this being a declaratory action, the plaintiffs have the burden to prove their case,” he said.
“A declaratory relief is not granted by the court as a matter of course.”
The APC lawyer also attacked the substance of the questions placed before the court by Atiku and the ADC, describing the five questions for determination as hypothetical and academic.
“It is purely imaginary. The plaintiffs have not shown in their affidavit that they have suffered any infringement of their civil right and obligation by an act of the 2nd defendant,” he argued.
Another ground raised by the APC was that part of the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs was statute-barred.
Olujimi argued that the plaintiffs should have brought their complaint within 14 days of the alleged submission of the documents they were challenging.
“The question that follows from this is what time were the particulars of the 1st defendant submitted to the 3rd defendant?” he asked.
He consequently urged the court to strike out the affected relief and another relief he described as an appendage to it.
The lawyer further argued that the suit was incompetent because it amounted to a pre-election matter that did not fall within the circumstances permitted by the Constitution and Electoral Act.
He relied on Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2026, arguing that only an aspirant who participated in a political party’s primary can institute certain challenges concerning the conduct of that party’s primary.
“While Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act provides that only an aspirant who participated in the primaries of a political party may file a suit in court to challenge the conduct of the primaries of the political party, Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, has defined matters which such an aspirant may complain about in a pre-election suit,” he said.
Olujimi therefore maintained that Atiku and the ADC lacked the locus standi to challenge Tinubu’s emergence as the APC presidential candidate.
He cited a Supreme Court description of persons who interfere in the internal affairs of another political party as “mere busybodies doing nothing but dabbling and poke-nosing into the internal affairs of those other parties that do not, in law, directly affect their own interest and preparation for an election.”
The APC also argued that the suit was improperly constituted because Atiku and the ADC were challenging the validity of Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act without joining the National Assembly, which enacted the legislation.
The lawyer further argued that the Attorney-General should have been joined because of the constitutional role of that office in representing the state in relevant proceedings.
Olujimi consequently asked Justice Ekwo to uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.
The latest application comes days after Justice Ekwo warned lawyers involved in the case against discussing the proceedings in the media or on social media.
“This case is to be conducted in court and not in the media, whether it is regular or social,” the judge said.
“If this case is discussed on social media, I will hold counsel for the party responsible, and I will take very drastic action.”
The warning was issued during an earlier proceeding in which the court dealt with the issue of service of the originating processes on Tinubu.
Atiku and ADC’s lawyer, Joseph Onu, had told the court that the plaintiffs had not personally served the President and were insisting on personal service because of the importance of the case.
“My lord, this is a very important case, and we do not want to leave any chance for a technicality. We do not want to fall into any trap,” Onu said.
He, however, indicated that the plaintiffs could accept service through Tinubu’s lawyer if a written undertaking was provided.
“But if we have a written undertaking from the 1st defendant to be served through counsel, we will accept,” he added.
Tinubu’s lawyer, Omosanya Popoola, was present in court and announced his appearance for the President, while INEC’s counsel, Alex Iziyon, argued that there was no need for personal service after Tinubu’s lawyer had appeared.
Justice Ekwo, however, declined to dictate how the plaintiffs should conduct their case and adjourned the matter to September 28.
Atiku and the ADC’s challenge is linked to an alleged discrepancy involving the name appearing on an NYSC certificate attributed to Tinubu. The plaintiffs contend that the certificate submitted to INEC bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, while the President is officially known as “Bola Ahmed Tinubu”.
They are relying on Section 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which provides for disqualification where a presidential candidate presents a forged certificate to INEC.