THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF “SCHOOL CERTIFICATE LEVEL OR ITS EQUIVALENT”: DOES THE NON-SUBMISSION OF PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOL CERTIFICATES DISQUALIFY A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE?

The recent publication by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of the personal particulars and credentials of candidates for the 2027 Presidential Election has once again reignited public debate over the constitutional educational qualification required for election to the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The immediate issue that has dominated public discourse, particularly regarding one of the candidates, is whether a presidential aspirant who submits only a university degree, without attaching his Primary School Leaving Certificate or Senior Secondary School Certificate, has thereby violated the Constitution or the Electoral Act.

This question calls for a careful legal analysis rather than partisan commentary or political sentiment.
Section 131(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), provides that a person shall be qualified for election to the office of President if: “He has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.”

This constitutional provision is significant, not merely for what it says, but equally for what it does not say.
The Constitution does not require a university degree as a qualification for the office of President. Equally, it does not expressly require the submission of a Primary School Leaving Certificate or a Senior Secondary School Certificate as a condition precedent for nomination.

Rather, what the Constitution requires is educational attainment up to School Certificate level or its equivalent.
The expression “School Certificate or its equivalent” is itself defined in Section 318(1) of the Constitution. The definition is considerably broader than the mere possession of a WAEC or NECO certificate. It includes:

• possession of a Secondary School Certificate or its equivalent;
• Grade II Teacher’s Certificate;
• City and Guilds Certificate;
• or education up to Secondary School Certificate level;
• and, in certain circumstances, the ability to read, write, understand and communicate effectively in English coupled with relevant experience or service prescribed by the Constitution.

The Constitution therefore adopts a substantive rather than a purely documentary approach to educational qualification.

This constitutional interpretation has received judicial approval. In PDP v. INEC & Ors (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) 525, the Supreme Court emphasised that the expression “School Certificate or its equivalent” must be construed in accordance with the expanded definition contained in Section 318(1) of the Constitution. The Court recognised that the constitutional requirement is not confined to the production of a WAEC or NECO certificate alone but extends to the broader qualifications expressly recognised by the Constitution.

Consequently, courts are enjoined to determine questions of qualification by reference to the Constitution itself rather than by importing additional requirements not contemplated by the Constitution.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that where the Constitution has prescribed qualifications for elective office, neither the legislature nor any administrative agency can enlarge or diminish those qualifications. See Action Congress v. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 222.

Ordinarily, admission into a recognised university presupposes prior educational qualifications sufficient for admission.

Accordingly, possession of a recognised Bachelor’s Degree ordinarily constitutes strong prima facie evidence that the holder has attained education beyond School Certificate level. While such a degree may not automatically establish every historical step in the holder’s educational journey, it undoubtedly serves as compelling evidence that the constitutional threshold of education has been surpassed.

It is therefore difficult to argue that the Constitution intended a university graduate to be regarded as educationally unqualified merely because copies of earlier certificates were not attached to nomination papers.
Indeed, the Constitution nowhere provides that every educational qualification previously obtained must accompany a candidate’s nomination documents. To read such an obligation into Section 131(d) would amount to importing into the Constitution a requirement that its framers deliberately omitted.

The Electoral Act 2026 requires every candidate to submit personal particulars and credentials to INEC for publication. The purpose is to promote transparency and afford interested persons an opportunity to scrutinise the information supplied and, where appropriate, institute a pre-election action challenging any false information or constitutional disqualification within the period prescribed by law.

However, the Electoral Act cannot enlarge or diminish the qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that where the Constitution has stipulated qualifications for elective office, neither legislation nor administrative practice can add to or subtract from those constitutional requirements.

The Electoral Act cannot properly be interpreted as imposing a constitutional obligation upon every presidential candidate to submit every educational certificate obtained from primary school upwards.
The real legal issues, therefore, ought not to be whether primary or secondary school certificates were attached to the nomination papers.

Rather, the proper constitutional questions are:
(a).Has the candidate established that he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent?
(b).Has the candidate supplied any false information in the affidavit or documents submitted to INEC?
(c).Are any of the credentials submitted forged, fabricated or otherwise invalid?
(d).Does the evidence establish constitutional disqualification?

These are the questions contemplated by both the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
Nigerian appellate courts have consistently distinguished between the absence of a particular document and proof of constitutional qualification. The two are not necessarily synonymous.

Where, however, a candidate knowingly supplies false information or submits forged certificates, the Constitution and the Electoral Act provide adequate remedies.

In Modibbo v. Usman & Ors (2019) LPELR-47095(CA), the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that where false information relating to qualification is established, the courts possess the constitutional authority to impose the legal consequences prescribed by law.

It is equally important to appreciate the constitutional role of INEC. INEC is essentially an administrative body. Its constitutional responsibility is to receive nomination papers, publish candidates’ particulars and conduct elections in accordance with the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

Questions concerning constitutional qualification, false declaration or forged credentials ultimately fall within the exclusive province of the courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction. Indeed, under the present electoral framework, such disputes are principally determined as pre-election matters.

Transparency nevertheless remains an indispensable democratic value. Although the Constitution does not compel a candidate to submit every educational certificate obtained throughout his academic career, nothing prevents a candidate from voluntarily producing additional documents where public concerns arise regarding his educational background. Such openness promotes public confidence and strengthens the integrity of the electoral process.

However, ‘political’ transparency should not be confused with constitutional compulsion. Courts must resist the temptation to impose obligations that the Constitution itself has not prescribed.

Ultimately, constitutional adjudication must remain anchored on the text of the Constitution rather than public opinion, political rivalry or emotional considerations.

In conclusion, Section 131(d) of the Constitution requires educational attainment up to School Certificate level or its equivalent, not necessarily the production of every educational certificate acquired during one’s academic journey. Where a candidate presents a recognised university degree, that qualification ordinarily constitutes strong prima facie evidence that he has attained education beyond the constitutional minimum.

Accordingly, the mere omission of primary or secondary school certificates from documents submitted to INEC does not, without more, establish a violation of either the Constitution or the Electoral Act.

If, however, competent judicial proceedings establish that any credential submitted is forged, false or incapable of satisfying the constitutional requirement, the law provides adequate remedies, including disqualification where appropriate.

In constitutional adjudication, evidence, not speculation, conjecture or political sentiment remains the bedrock upon which judicial determination must rest. Ruminate on these before approaching the bench!

• Dr. Monday O. Ubani, SAN is a Legal Practitioner/Constitutional Lawyer and Public Policy Analyst.

(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.