Atiku’s eligibility suit: I didn’t submit forged NYSC certificate to INEC -Tinubu
President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) have denied submitting a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as they moved to knock out a suit seeking to disqualify them from the 2027 presidential election.
The President and his party, in their response to the suit filed by African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, and the ADC, also denied submitting the Form CF001 referred to by the plaintiffs for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential election.
Meanwhile, the Federal High Court in Abuja has granted Atiku permission to serve the originating processes on Tinubu through the APC after his lawyers told the court that efforts to effect personal service on the President had failed.
Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the ex-parte application moved by Atiku’s counsel, O.T. Omotayo-Ojo, and ordered that the processes be served within seven days, following counsel’s undertaking to do so.
The court subsequently adjourned the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, until September 28 for mention.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential election over their allegation that the President presented a forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC.
They are also seeking an order compelling INEC to remove Tinubu and the APC from the list of candidates and political parties participating in the election.
Tinubu is the first defendant, while the APC and INEC are the second and third defendants respectively.
Moving the application for substituted service, Omotayo-Ojo told the court that it became necessary because the originating summons and other processes had not been personally served on the President.
He urged the court to permit service through the APC.
At the previous proceedings on September 1, Silas Onu, whose brief Omotayo-Ojo held on Wednesday, had similarly informed the court that attempts to personally serve Tinubu were unsuccessful and sought leave to serve him by substituted means.
Tinubu, the APC and INEC have, however, separately challenged the competence of the suit and asked the court to dismiss it.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, Tinubu and the APC denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC in connection with either the 2023 or 2027 presidential election.
The counter-affidavit, deposed to by APC Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, also denied the plaintiffs’ claim that Tinubu and the party submitted Form CF001 to INEC for either election.
The defendants maintained that the NYSC had never denied issuing Tinubu a discharge certificate and contended that no constitutional provision was breached by the submission of his personal particulars to the electoral commission.
In their written address, counsel to Tinubu and the APC, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, argued that the allegation of forgery was criminal in nature and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
Olujinmi argued that judicial authorities require evidence from the institution purported to have issued a disputed document in establishing forgery, contending that Atiku and the ADC had produced no disclaimer from the NYSC denying issuance of the certificate.
He further argued that proof of forgery required the production of both the original and the allegedly forged document.
The defendants consequently described the action as hypothetical, academic and unsupported by material facts.
They also contended that the action was incompetent as a pre-election matter and that Atiku and the ADC lacked the locus standi to challenge Tinubu’s emergence as the APC presidential candidate.
INEC, in a preliminary objection filed on September 7 through its counsel, Alex Izinyon, also asked the court to dismiss the suit.
The commission argued that the action was statute-barred, that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi and that the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action and amounted to an abuse of court process.
INEC further contended that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory written-deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.
It also challenged Reliefs 2 and 3 contained in the originating summons and urged the court to dismiss the action.
