Tinubu Denies Submitting Fake NYSC Certificate To INEC

The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, names Tinubu, the APC, and INEC as the first, second, and third defendants, respectively.

Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu and the APC and direct INEC to remove their names from the list of candidates and political parties for the 2027 presidential election.

Meanwhile, Justice Inyang Ekwo has granted Atiku permission to serve the court processes on Tinubu through the APC after the plaintiffs told the court that attempts to personally serve the President had been unsuccessful.

The court granted the order on Wednesday after Atiku’s counsel, Olanrewaju Omotayo-Ojo, argued an ex parte application. The judge directed that the processes be served through the APC within seven days.

The court subsequently adjourned the matter until September 28 for further proceedings.

Moving the application, Omotayo-Ojo told the court that substituted service had become necessary because the originating summons and other processes had not been personally served on Tinubu.

The issue of service had previously stalled proceedings, with the plaintiffs maintaining that they wanted to personally serve the President or obtain an appropriate order for substituted service.

In their joint counter-affidavit, Tinubu and the APC denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC in connection with either the 2023 or 2027 presidential election.

The document, deposed to by the APC Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, also disputed the claim that Tinubu or the party submitted Form CF001 to INEC for either election.

The defendants maintained that the NYSC had never disowned the discharge certificate issued to Tinubu and argued that submitting the President’s personal particulars to the electoral commission did not breach any constitutional provision.

In a written address filed on behalf of Tinubu and the APC, their counsel, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, argued that the forgery allegation was criminal in nature and therefore required proof beyond reasonable doubt under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.

Olujinmi argued that where a document is alleged to have been forged, evidence from the institution said to have issued the document would be central to establishing the allegation.

He contended that Atiku and the ADC had not produced a disclaimer from the NYSC denying that it issued the discharge certificate attributed to Tinubu.

The defence also argued that the plaintiffs had failed to produce the original document from which the alleged forgery was made alongside the disputed document.

On that basis, Tinubu and the APC described the case as hypothetical and lacking sufficient material facts.

They further argued that the action was incompetent as a pre-election matter and that Atiku and the ADC lacked the legal standing to challenge Tinubu’s emergence as the APC presidential candidate.

INEC has also challenged the case’s competence.

In a preliminary objection filed through its counsel, Alex Izinyon, the electoral commission asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing, among other grounds, that it was statute-barred and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute it.

The commission also contended that the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action and amounted to an abuse of court process.

INEC further challenged the plaintiffs’ compliance with the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions, including the requirement relating to written depositions.

The commission also opposed some of the reliefs sought by Atiku and the ADC and urged the court to strike out the action.