COURT ORDERS SERVICE OF ATIKU’S SUIT ON TINUBU OVER ALLEGED NYSC CERTIFICATE FORGERY

Read Time:3 Minute, 22 Second

By Aishat Momoh. O.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered that President Bola Tinubu be served within seven days with a suit filed by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar seeking his disqualification from the 2027 presidential election over an alleged forged National Youth Service Corps certificate.

Justice Inyang Ekwo made the order on Wednesday after granting an application for substituted service of the court processes on Tinubu through his political party, the All Progressives Congress.

The ruling followed a motion moved by Atiku’s counsel, Olanrewaju Omotayo-Ojo, who appeared in place of Silas Onu, said to be bereaved.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was filed by Atiku and the African Democratic Congress, with Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission listed as the first to third defendants respectively.

Atiku, in a 25-paragraph affidavit filed in support of the suit, alleged that Tinubu submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC in support of his qualification for the presidency.

He specifically alleged that the certificate bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which, according to him, does not correspond with the President’s name.

Atiku stated that the certificate was attached to his affidavit as Exhibit P2 and alleged that it had been submitted to INEC and remained in the commission’s custody.

He further alleged that Tinubu had been presenting the disputed certificate since 1999, when he contested the Lagos State governorship election.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the alleged submission of the certificate amounts to a violation of Section 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election.

They are also seeking declarations concerning the alleged presentation of the certificate and an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 election.

The case is scheduled for further proceedings on September 28, 2026.

However, Tinubu and the APC have denied the allegation and urged the court to dismiss the suit.

In their counter-affidavit, the defendants maintained that no forged certificate was submitted to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections. They also argued that the NYSC had not disowned the certificate in question.

Tinubu’s legal team has further challenged the competence of the suit and Atiku’s legal standing to challenge the President’s candidacy.

One of the objections filed on Tinubu’s behalf argued that the action was statute-barred and that the plaintiffs failed to institute the challenge within the period prescribed by law.

The defendants also argued that allegations of forgery, being criminal in nature, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and faulted the plaintiffs for failing to produce evidence from the NYSC expressly disclaiming the certificate.

There also appears to be a dispute over the legal representation of the President, with both Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, and Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, filing processes in the matter on Tinubu’s behalf.

In a letter dated September 10 and addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court, Olanipekun said he had been briefed by Tinubu to lead a team of lawyers to represent him in the case.

The senior lawyer also complained that the President had yet to be personally served with the originating processes and requested copies of the documents to enable the filing of his response.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs have applied to amend portions of their suit, including the description of the INEC form allegedly attached to the disputed certificate.

They said the form was mistakenly described as Form CF001 instead of the applicable Form EC9A. They also sought to clarify the particulars of the alleged fraud and provide clearer copies of some exhibits.

INEC has opposed the plaintiffs’ bid to amend the suit, challenging its competence and arguing, among other things, that the action is statute-barred and that the plaintiffs lack the legal standing to institute it.

The allegations of certificate forgery remain claims before the court and have not been judicially determined.