The All Progressives Congress (APC) and President Bola Tinubu have prayed the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss, in its entirety, a suit filed by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of Action Democratic Congress (ADC).
Atiku and ADC had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, sued President Tinubu, APC and 00Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over allegation that the president presented a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to INEC.
Atiku, a former vice president, and his party, therefore, sought a court order disqualifying Tinubu and APC (1st and 2nd defendants) from the 2027 presidential election.
In a joint counter affidavit filed on September 9 on Thursday, Tinubu and APC denied submitting any forged certificate to the commission either for the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
The APC Director of Legal Services, Mr Sanusi Samaila, who deposed to the counter affidavit dated September 8, averred that President Tinubu did not submit any Form CF001 to INEC for 2023 or 2027 poll as claimed by the plaintiffs.
“The 1st defendant (Tinubu) emphatically denies the plaintiffs’ allegation of forgery and submission of forged certificate to the 3rd defendant (INEC) for 2023 or 2027 presdential elections.”
According to Samaila, the NYSC has never denied issuing National Youth service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to the 1st defendant at the end of his service year.
“None of the documents the 1st defendant submitted to the 3rd defendant for the 2023 and the coming 2027 presidential elections was forged.
“1st defendant’s educational quaiilication and the National Youth service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to INEC were acceptable to INEC who later published his name and particulars as the presidential cancidate of the 2nd defendant in the 2023 presidential election as well as the upcoming 2027 presidential election as deposed to in Paragraph 14 of the plaintiffs’ affidavit.”
The APC legal director argued that contrary to Paragraph 27 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, no constitutional provision had been breached nor had any injustice been done to the plaintiffs by the 1st and 2nd defendant’s action of submission of the president’s personal particulars to INEC.
He said Atiku was neither a member of APC nor an aspirant in the party’s presidential primary election conducted in May at which Tinubu emerged as its presidential candidate.
Looking at Atiku and ADC’s claims on Tinubu’s eligibility and his nomination as APC’s candidate, Samaila submitted that none of the plaintiffs participated in the party’s primary or process of nomination of its presidential candidate.
“The plaintiffs are not in this sult alleging any breach of the provisions of the Electorai 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 (INEC) for the coming 2027 presidential election.
“The plaintiffs are also not challenging any decision, action or activity of INEC in this suit,” he said.
He said by a letter dated June 26 attached as Exhibit APC 1, the party submitted the names of its candidates for the 2027 presidential and other elections to the electoral umpire.
He said INEC, by a copy of the acknowledgment of receipt of the profile of Tinubu which was attached as Exhibit APC 2, confirmed submission of the 1st defendant’s profile as presidential candidate on July 11.
In a written address attached to the application and filed by Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, the senior lawyer raised a number of objections to the originating summons.
Olujinmi observed that though the plaintiffs’ complaint is an allegation of forgery which is no doubt a crime, he said such allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, citing Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, among others.
“It is a settied law that the evidence required to prove that a certificate is forged is a disclaimer from the institution that Is said to have issued the certificate,” he said, citing a previous Supreme Court decision to back his argument.
According to him, without evidence from the institution or body that is purported to have issued the certificate or other document stating that it did not issue the certificate or document or that any part of the certificate or document is not made by it, it would be idle and useless to contend that it is forged.
He said the apex court had also held that “in order to prove forgery, or that a document is forged, two documents must be produced viz: the document from which the forgery was (a) made; and (b) the forgery or the forged document.”
Olujinmi, however, submitted that in the instant case, Atiku and ADC had produced no evidence from NYSC Directorate, disclaiming issuance of discharge certificate to the 1st defendant.
Besides, he said they had also not produced the document from which the alleged forgery was made and the alleged forged NYSC discharge certificate.
“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,” he said.
The lawyer, who argued that all the five questions raised by Atiku for determination were hypothetical and academic in nature, submitted that the the case is not found on any real facts.
“It is purely imaginary. The plaintiffs have not shown in their affidavit that they have suffered any infringement of their civil right and obligation by an act of the 2nd defendant.”
He further argued that the plaintiffs’ Relief 4 is statute-barred, in that they ought to have presented thelr complaint in regard to the 2023 and 2027 elections within 14 days of the presentation of the allegedly forged certificates but they did not.
According to him, it is clear from this provision that the period of 14 days should be counted from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of.
“The question that follows from this is what time were the particulars of the 1st defendant submitted to the 3rd defendant?” he asked.
He argued that since Relief 5 is an appendage to Relief 4, it also should be struck out.
Olujinmi further stated that the suit is incompetent, being a pre-election matter.
According to him, for a pre-election suit to be competent, it must be justifiable within the definition of pre-election in Section 285(14) of the Constitution read along with Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act. 2026.
“While Section 29(5} of the Electoral Act provides that only an aspirant who participated in the primaries of a political party may file a suit in court to challenge the conduct of the primaries of the political party, Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, has defined matters which such an aspirant may complain about in a pre-election suit.”
The senior lawyer, argued that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to challenge the emergence of Tinubu as APC candidate.
He said the Supreme Court described such parties as “mere busybodies doing nothing but dabbling and pokenosing into the internal affairs of those other parties that do not, in law, directly affect their own interest and preparation for an election.”
He said the suit is improperly constituted as shown in their Reliefs 2 and 3, where the plaintiffs attacked the validity of Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which does not fall within the meaning of pre-election matter in Section 285{14} of the 1999 Constitution.
Besides, he argued that the plaintiffs failed to join the National Assembly which enacted the Act and the Attomey-General who is endowed with constitutional authority to represent the state in matters for or against the state.
Olujinmi, therefore, urged the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the case.
The matter is currently before Justice Inyang Ekwo.
The court fixed September 28 for hearing.
