“Wants INEC To Produce Tinubu’s CF001 Records

*‘Presidency Not Immunity Certificate Against Constitutional Scrutiny’

*Petitions EU Over President’s Alleged False Certificates, $460,000 US Forfeiture

FORMER vice president and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, on Friday, August 14, 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 next year’s presidential election.

    The action, instituted by Atiku and 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, especially Section 137(1)(j), 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.

    The suit specifically asks the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from the presidential election over the plaintiffs’ allegation that Tinubu presented a forged NYSC certificate to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.

    A statement by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, quoted Atiku, speaking after personally taking the oath, as saying his presence at the court registry was deliberate, noting: “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.”

    In his affidavit, Atiku alleges that Tinubu submitted to INEC, an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle,” which he said, is different from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

    The affidavit also alleged that the same NYSC certificate was submitted in connection with next year’s presidential election, contending that the document is not a certificate obtained by Tinubu.

    Atiku also placed INEC on notice to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted in connection with the 2023 and next year’s presidential elections.

    The affidavit states that the former vice president had applied for Certified True Copies (CTC) of the relevant form before filing the suit, but had received no response at the time the processes were prepared, noting: “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.”

    Atiku and ADC are also challenging provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which 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 that allows the questioning of whether a person elected into the office of President is qualified.

    They argue that legislation cannot be used to shut the door against enforcement of an express constitutional provision, adding 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.”

    The originating summons asks the court to determine whether the statutory restrictions complained of can prevent the plaintiffs from invoking Section 137(1)(j), and ultimately whether Tinubu and APC should be disqualified from participating in the presidential election if the plaintiffs’ case is established.

    Among the substantive reliefs sought is an order disqualifying Tinubu and APC from participating in the presidential election on the grounds pleaded by the plaintiffs.

    Atiku stated: “Nobody should misunderstand what is at stake. Nigerian graduates cannot complete NYSC documentation with one identity and simply ask employers to ignore discrepancies.

    “Young Nigerians seeking ordinary jobs are subjected to rigorous scrutiny of their certificates. The standard cannot suddenly disappear because the applicant is seeking the highest office in the land.

    “The Presidency is not an immunity certificate against constitutional scrutiny.”

    Atiku said the suit also places a responsibility on INEC to demonstrate its neutrality by making the relevant records available to the court, with his affidavit stating that INEC, as a neutral public institution, is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution regardless of whose political interest may be affected.

    He added: “INEC is holding the documents. The court has the jurisdiction to examine the issues. President Tinubu has the opportunity to defend himself. That is the constitutional process, and nobody should be afraid of it.

    “The 2027 election must begin with clarity about the qualification of those seeking the Presidency. Nigerians should not be asked to vote first and investigate later.”

    Atiku stressed that his personal appearance to depose to the affidavit underscored his willingness to submit himself to the same constitutional standards he demands of others, saying: “I have sworn to my case before the law.

    “I am prepared to be held accountable for what I have placed before the court. President Tinubu should equally be prepared to answer the case against him before the law.”

    Counsel to the Plaintiffs, Edwin Inegedu (SAN) and Joseph Onu Silas, expressed confidence in the case, saying they had carefully reviewed the law and placed their arguments before the court and prepared to confront the Defendants’ case once served.

    “We are confident that justice will prevail. This case presents an important opportunity to further develop Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence,” Silas said.

    He added: “This is not about privilege, personalities or presidential power; it is about one Constitution and one standard for every Nigerian.

    “Nobody is above the Constitution, not Atiku Abubakar, not Bola Tinubu, and certainly not the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

    In a related development, a renewed political battle over Tinubu’s academic records and a decades-old civil forfeiture case in the United States (US) has moved to Europe, with a member of his legal team submitting a petition to the European Commission, alleging threats to Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

    Atiku’s media aide, Paul Ibe, in a post on his X handle on Friday, said Kalu Kalu submitted the petition in Brussels, Belgium, urging European institutions to examine issues relating to Tinubu’s alleged certificate forgery, questions surrounding documents submitted for election and the 1993 civil forfeiture of $460,000 in the US linked to a drug investigation.

    According to Ibe, Kalu, speaking to journalists after submitting the petition at the European Commission, alleged that Tinubu had undermined Nigeria’s constitutional order through documents submitted to INEC.

    He quoted Kalu as saying: “I am here at the European Commission to submit a petition to the European Union (EU) concerning the subversion of constitutional order in Nigeria where Mr. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has suspended the constitutional order in Nigeria because of his false academic credentials which he submitted to INEC.

    “He did not state the primary school and the secondary school he attended in flagrant violation of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, particularly Section 137(1)(j), which says if you have presented a false certificate to INEC, the Independent National Electoral Commission, you will not be qualified to run election.”

    Kalu further claimed that Tinubu “submitted false documents, false certificates to INEC,” arguing that this allegedly rendered him ineligible to contest for the presidency.

    While accusing the President of using state institutions to remain in office, Atiku’s lawyer stated: “Because they have captured all the paraphernalia of power in Nigeria, he has imposed himself on Nigeria, thereby subverting the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, which is a mini coup against the people of Nigeria.

    “So, I’m here to submit a petition to the EU to help restore constitutional democracy in Nigeria.”

    Details of the petition were not immediately made public, and there was no immediate indication that the European Commission had taken any action in response to its submission.

    The Presidency was yet to respond to Kalu’s latest allegations at press time.

    Most of the issues raised are not new, as they were part of legal challenges mounted by Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) after the 2023 presidential election in which Atiku was the party’s presidential candidate, up to the Supreme Court, which dismissed their appeal and upheld Tinubu’s election.