KEY POINTS

• Atiku and the ADC have sued Tinubu over alleged NYSC certificate forgery and are seeking his disqualification from the 2027 election.
• The plaintiffs want INEC to release Tinubu’s 2023 and 2027 Form CF001 documents for examination by the court.
• The case also challenges parts of the Electoral Act, 2026, and could have wider implications for Nigeria’s pre-election legal framework.

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has filed a lawsuit against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over an alleged forgery of a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate, asking the Federal High Court in Abuja to disqualify Tinubu from contesting the 2027 presidential election.

Atiku, who is the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), filed the case alongside his party on Friday. The All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were also joined as defendants.

The legal action places Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 election before the courts and could become an important pre-election dispute as political activities ahead of the poll intensify.

At the centre of the lawsuit is an allegation concerning the NYSC certificate submitted to INEC by Tinubu.

Atiku and the ADC argue that the certificate bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which they contend differs from the president’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the alleged discrepancies and other issues raised in their case amount to grounds for Tinubu’s disqualification under Nigeria’s Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2026.

They are relying particularly on Section 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

That provision states that a person is not qualified to be elected president if they have presented a forged certificate to INEC.

Atiku personally appeared at the Federal High Court registry in Abuja to depose to an affidavit supporting the case.

The former vice-president said he chose to appear personally because, in his view, the issues raised in the lawsuit concern the constitutional requirements for occupying Nigeria’s highest political office.

Atiku said the case was not intended to be decided through political arguments or social media debates, but through the presentation of evidence before the judiciary.

He maintained that the relevant records should be produced and examined by the court before any conclusion is reached.

Plaintiffs want INEC to release election documents

As part of the case, Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to compel INEC to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.

Form CF001 contains information and documentation submitted by political candidates to the electoral commission.

The plaintiffs said they had previously applied for certified true copies of relevant documents but had not received a response by the time the lawsuit was filed.

They argue that access to the documents is necessary to establish the facts surrounding Tinubu’s qualifications and the information submitted to INEC.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the alleged presentation of a forged certificate, if established, would trigger the disqualification provision contained in Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution.

They also want the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be prevented from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the allegations are proven.

The case therefore goes beyond the alleged certificate discrepancy and raises broader questions about the constitutional requirements for presidential candidates.

The suit also questions provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which the plaintiffs argue may restrict challenges to a candidate’s qualification before an election.

Atiku and the ADC contend that legislation enacted by the National Assembly cannot override an express provision of the Constitution.

They are asking the court to determine whether the statutory restrictions contained in the Electoral Act can prevent them from relying on Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution.

The argument could potentially lead to judicial clarification on the relationship between constitutional eligibility requirements and the procedures governing pre-election challenges.