Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has issued an order for President Bola Tinubu to be served, within seven days, with the suit seeking to stop him from contesting the 2027 presidential election over his alleged submission of forged certificates to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

In a ruling, Justice Ekwo approved substituted service of the legal process on President Tinubu through his political party, the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Justice Ekwo made the order after hearing a motion moved by counsel for Atiku, Olanrewaju Omotayo-Ojo, who stood in for Silas Onu, said to be bereaved.

The suit was brought before the court by a former vice president and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar.

While the ADC was joined as the second plaintiff, Tinubu, the APC, and INEC were listed as the first to third defendants, respectively.

Specifically, Atiku, in a 25-paragraph affidavit he personally deposed to in support of the suit, alleged that President Tinubu submitted a bogus National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to INEC in support of his qualification for the presidential seat.

Insisting that the President gave false information about himself in the Form CF0001 he submitted to INEC, the plaintiffs drew the court’s attention to the fact that the NYSC certificate he submitted to the electoral body bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle.”

“I know that the NYSC certificate is clearly not one obtained by the 1st defendant, as it belongs to one Adekunle,” Atiku said. “The said NYSC certificate, bearing the name Tinubu Bola Adekunle, is herein attached and marked as Exhibit P2.”

He told the court that Tinubu had been parading the forged certificate since 1999, when he contested the Lagos State governorship election.

Atiku therefore urged the court, among others, to determine: “Whether, in view of the limitations in section 138(1)(a) & (b) of the Electoral Act, 2026, and section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), the Plaintiffs will not be allowed to enforce the binding provision of section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), which applies, mutatis mutandis, to all candidates aspiring to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

As well as: “Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants should be disqualified for presenting a forged NYSC certificate to the 3rd Defendant for the 2023 and 2027 Presidential Elections, in breach of section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended).”

Upon a positive determination of the legal questions, the plaintiffs sought a “declaration that the 1st Defendant presented a forged certificate to the 3rd Defendant when he contested for Governor of Lagos State in 1999, and thereby breached the provision of section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended).”

They also sought “an order disqualifying the 1st and 2nd Defendants from participating in the 2027 Presidential Election, for presenting a forged certificate to the 3rd Defendant when the 1st Defendant contested for Governor of Lagos State in 1999.”

The court had earlier slated September 28 to commence full hearing of the case.

The INEC has since filed processes challenging the competence of the suit, which it urged the court to dismiss.

However, two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) filed processes as counsel for President Tinubu in the matter.

Although the plaintiffs had insisted on effecting personal service of the suit on President Tinubu, a former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, and a former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, have separately filed processes for the first defendant.

The two senior lawyers separately challenged the competence of the suit and Atiku’s locus standi (legal right) to query the credentials Tinubu submitted to INEC, citing provisions of Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2026.

In a counter-affidavit filed on Tinubu’s behalf, Olujinmi contended that Atiku’s case had become statute-barred, noting that the certificates were submitted to INEC before August 1 and the 14-day period allowed for such litigation had elapsed.

Besides, he argued that Atiku, being a member of the ADC, has no legal right to challenge what was done by the APC.

Similarly, Olanipekun, who also identified himself as Tinubu’s lawyer, filed both a preliminary objection and a counter-affidavit seeking dismissal of the suit, which he maintained is incompetent and a gross abuse of court process.

In a letter dated September 10, addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court, the former NBA president said he had been briefed by President Tinubu to lead a team of counsel to represent and defend his interests in the matter.

(C) CITY LAWYER Magazine. All rights reserved. To join our Channel, click here. Click here to join our WhatsApp chatroom. Contact us at citylawyermag@gmail.com or 081-3838-0083.