By Franklin Adole
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed September 28 for further proceedings in a suit filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar seeking to stop President Bola Tinubu from contesting the 2027 presidential election over allegations that he submitted a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the case on Tuesday after a dispute arose over the service of court processes on the President, even as the judge warned all parties against litigating the politically sensitive case in the traditional or social media.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was instituted by Atiku, presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), with the party joined as the second plaintiff.
Tinubu, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC were listed as the first, second and third defendants respectively.
In a 25-paragraph affidavit personally deposed to in support of the action, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” to INEC and contended that the document did not belong to the President.
The former Vice President further alleged that Tinubu supplied false information in the Form CF0001 submitted to INEC and asked the court to determine whether the alleged submission of a forged certificate should disqualify him from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
“I know that the NYSC certificate is clearly not one obtained by the 1st defendant, as it belongs to one Adekunle,” Atiku stated in the affidavit.
He maintained that the certificate remained in INEC’s custody and alleged that Tinubu had relied on the document since his successful campaign for Lagos State governor in 1999.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to interpret relevant provisions of Section 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, alongside provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 and Section 285 of the Constitution.
Among other reliefs, the plaintiffs want a declaration that Tinubu presented a forged certificate when he contested the 1999 Lagos governorship election and an order disqualifying him and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
The allegations remain claims before the court and have not been judicially established.
When proceedings resumed on Tuesday, a team of lawyers led by Omosanya Popoola announced an appearance for Tinubu. Atiku’s counsel, Joseph Onu, however, told the court that the plaintiffs had been unable to serve the President with the originating processes.
Popoola informed the court that he had Tinubu’s authority to represent him, but Atiku’s lawyer insisted that because of the significance of the case, the plaintiffs wanted to ensure proper service and avoid the possibility of the action subsequently failing on a technical ground.
“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 added that the plaintiffs would accept service through Tinubu’s counsel if they received a written undertaking authorising the arrangement.
INEC’s counsel, Dr Alex Iziyon, SAN, opposed the insistence on personal service, arguing that the appearance of lawyers representing the President was sufficient.
Iziyon also called for an expedited hearing, noting that more than 17 days had elapsed since the suit was filed and told the court that INEC was prepared to file its defence within ten days.
Justice Ekwo, after hearing the parties, said the court could not dictate to the plaintiffs how to conduct their case and consequently adjourned the matter to September 28 for mention.
The judge, however, issued a stern warning against public commentary by parties and their lawyers on the substance of the pending litigation, stressing that the dispute must be fought in court rather than through the media.
“This case is to be conducted in the court and not in the media, whether it is regular or social,” Justice Ekwo warned.
He said counsel would be held responsible if their parties discussed the case on social media, adding that the court would take “very drastic action” against any breach of the directive.
Discover more from Keeping Them Honest
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.