Court Adjourns Ex-minister Nnaji’s Certificate Forgery Suit

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday adjourned a suit filed by former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji, against the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN) and others until Feb. 15, 2027.
Recall that Nnaji filed the suit following allegations of certificate forgery levelled against him, as initially reported by kthdaily.
Justice Hauwa Yilwa adjourned the case following the absence of counsel for the 1st respondent in court.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, counsel to the ex-minister, Akintola Makinde, SAN, informed the court that the 1st respondent (Minister of Education) was not represented in court.
Makinde also drew the court’s attention to a pending motion seeking to regularise the processes filed in the matter, adding that their records indicated that hearing notices had been served on the parties.
However, Chris Uche, SAN, who appeared for the 3rd to 7th respondents, recalled that the court had, on Jan. 8, granted part of an earlier application seeking to regularise their processes, while the second prayer remained unresolved.
Uche then urged the court to deem the relevant processes as duly served.
In response, Justice Yilwa acknowledged that although she had granted the first prayer in the application, she had yet to grant the second relief.
Uche, therefore, assured that other outstanding issues would be addressed administratively.
By the consent of the parties, the judge adjourned the matter until Feb. 15, 2027 for hearing.
The former minister, in an ex parte motion, had sought an order granting him leave to issue prerogative writs prohibiting the university and its officials from “tampering with” or continuing to “tamper with” his academic records, among others.
Nnaji, in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1909/2025, sued the Minister of Education, the National Universities Commission (NUC), UNN and Ortuanya as 1st to 4th respondents.
He also joined the Registrar of UNN, UJAM, and the Senate of the university as 5th to 7th respondents, respectively.
He sought leave to issue a prerogative writ of mandamus compelling the university and its officials to release his academic transcript to him, and asked the Minister of Education and the NUC to exercise their supervisory powers to compel UNN to do so.
He equally sought an interim injunction restraining UNN and its officials from “tampering” with his academic records pending the determination of the substantive suit, among others.
In their preliminary objection, the 3rd to 7th defendants prayed the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction.
They also sought an order awarding substantial costs in favour of the 3rd, 4th and 6th defendants.
In a nine-ground argument, they said the motion ex parte for leave was not filed within three months of the occurrence of the subject matter.Notably, kthdaily has followed the ongoing developments, highlighting the legal arguments brought before the court.
They argued that this was contrary to Order 34 Rule 4(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.
They also argued that it was contrary to the provisions of Section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act 2004, which rendered the entire proceedings incompetent and robbed this court of jurisdiction.
“The substantive motion for prerogative orders was wrongly brought by motion on notice instead of an originating motion as required under Order 34Rule 5 (1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
“The application is incompetent, premature, speculative, there being no prior request or denial of release of academic records or any evidence of interference with the applicant’s academic records prior to the commencement of this action,” they said.For continued updates on this suit, kthdaily will provide comprehensive coverage as the hearing date approaches.
They equally argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain “matters concerning student academic records, examinations, results and transcripts.
They argued that the matter is not a proceeding arising from the administration or management of any agency within the exclusive jurisdiction in Section 251(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
They also argued that internal remedy has not been exhausted and the applicants’ fundamental rights have not been breached.
Besides, they said no reasonable cause of action was disclosed against the 3rd to 7th respondents, particularly the 4th respondent, Prof. Ortuanya, who acted solely in his official capacity as VC of UNN, among others.In conclusion, this detailed report underscores the importance of ongoing legal processes as covered by kthdaily.