Tinubu, APC Ask Court To Dismiss Atiku’s NYSC Certificate Forgery Suit

President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) have asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit filed by the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election over an allegedly forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate.

Naija News reports that Atiku and the ADC had, in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, sued Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), seeking the disqualification of the President and the ruling party from the 2027 presidential election.

The plaintiffs alleged that Tinubu presented a forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC.

However, in a joint counter affidavit filed on Thursday, Tinubu and the APC denied the allegation, insisting that no forged certificate was submitted to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.

The APC Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, who deposed to the counter affidavit dated September 8, said Tinubu did not submit any Form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or 2027 elections as alleged by Atiku and the ADC.

“The 1st defendant (Tinubu) emphatically denies the plaintiffs’ allegation of forgery and submission of a forged certificate to the 3rd defendant (INEC) for the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections,” he stated.

Samaila further argued that the NYSC had never disowned the discharge certificate allegedly issued to Tinubu after his service year.

“None of the documents Tinubu submitted to the INEC for the 2023 and the coming 2027 presidential elections were forged,” he said.

He added that Tinubu’s educational qualifications and NYSC discharge certificate were accepted by INEC, which subsequently published his particulars as the APC presidential candidate for the 2023 election and the forthcoming 2027 poll.

According to the APC, there was no constitutional breach or injustice against Atiku or the ADC arising from the submission of Tinubu’s personal particulars to INEC.

Samaila also challenged Atiku and the ADC’s legal standing to question Tinubu’s emergence as the APC presidential candidate.

He noted that Atiku was neither a member of the APC nor an aspirant in the party’s presidential primary held in May, where Tinubu emerged as the party’s candidate.

“The plaintiffs are not in this suit alleging any breach of the provisions of the Electoral Act or the 1999 Constitution by the 1st and 2nd defendants but they are only complaining about the nomination and submission of the name of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant for the coming 2027 presidential election,” he said.

Samaila added that neither Atiku nor the ADC participated in the APC primary or the process through which Tinubu was nominated.

He said the APC submitted the names of its candidates for the 2027 elections to INEC in a letter dated June 26, while the commission acknowledged receipt of Tinubu’s profile on July 11.

In a written address filed by Akin Olujimi, counsel to Tinubu and the APC, the defendants raised several objections to the suit.

Olujimi argued that because forgery constitutes a criminal allegation, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with the Evidence Act.

“It is a settled law that the evidence required to prove that a certificate is forged is a disclaimer from the institution that issued the certificate,” he said.

The senior lawyer maintained that Atiku and the ADC had not produced any document from the NYSC denying that it issued the certificate in question.

He also argued that the plaintiffs failed to produce either the original document from which the alleged forgery was made or the document they claimed was forged.

“We submit further that this being a declaratory action, the plaintiffs have the burden to prove their case. A declaratory relief is not granted by the court as a matter of course,” Olujimi stated.

The defendants further argued that parts of the suit were filed outside the period allowed by law.

Olujimi contended that one of the reliefs sought by Atiku and the ADC was statute-barred because the plaintiffs ought to have challenged the alleged submission of the certificate within 14 days of the event.

He argued that another relief, which depended on the contested claim, should consequently also be struck out. The lawyer also described the case as incompetent because it was a pre-election matter.

According to him, the suit did not fall within the scope of pre-election matters contemplated by Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2026.

He maintained that Section 29(5) allows an aspirant who participated in a political party’s primary to challenge the conduct of that primary.

Olujimi consequently argued that Atiku and the ADC lacked the legal standing to challenge Tinubu’s emergence as the APC candidate because they did not participate in the party’s primary.

He cited a Supreme Court decision which, according to him, described persons without a direct interest in another party’s internal affairs as “mere busybodies doing nothing but dabbling and poke-nosing into the internal affairs of those other parties.”

The lawyer also argued that the suit was improperly constituted because the plaintiffs challenged provisions of the Electoral Act without joining the National Assembly, which enacted the legislation, and the Attorney-General of the Federation.

He therefore urged Justice Inyang Ekwo to uphold the preliminary objections and dismiss the suit.

The Federal High Court in Abuja is currently hearing the matter.