2027: Atiku asks court to disqualify Tinubu over names, certificate controversy

Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has formally taken legal steps to challenge the eligibility of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to run in the 2027 Nigerian presidential election. On Friday, Atiku personally appeared at the Federal High Court in Abuja to file an affidavit supporting a lawsuit against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The case hinges on allegations that Tinubu submitted a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate during both the 2023 and 2027 electoral cycles. The legal action invokes several sections of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), including Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i), and 285(14)(c), alongside provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026. Central to the suit is Section 137(1)(j), which bars individuals from running for president if they have presented a forged certificate to INEC. According to the plaintiffs, Tinubu submitted an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle,” which differs from his official name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The affidavit claims that this certificate was also used in connection with the 2027 election and asserts that it does not belong to Tinubu. Atiku stated that his decision to appear in court personally was intentional, emphasizing the gravity of the constitutional and ethical implications of the case. He expressed concern that the issue could undermine public trust in the nation's democratic institutions. “I came here personally because the issues before the court go to the heart of our Constitution and the integrity of the office of President,” Atiku reportedly told the court. “I cannot ask Nigerians to respect the Constitution while treating a matter of this magnitude casually.” The lawsuit also seeks to compel INEC to provide access to Tinubu’s Form CF001, which was submitted in connection with the 2023 and 2027 elections. Atiku had previously requested certified true copies of these documents but received no response. This lack of transparency, he argued, necessitated judicial intervention. “We are not asking Nigerians to decide this matter on social media, and we are not asking INEC to become a court,” Atiku said. “We are asking the institution holding the records to produce them and the judiciary to examine the evidence and pronounce on it.” The legal challenge extends beyond the certificate dispute. Atiku and the ADC are also contesting provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which they argue limit the ability of candidates to question another’s eligibility before an election. Their argument centers on Section 139(a)(i) of the Constitution, which grants the National Assembly authority to legislate on matters related to the qualifications of presidential candidates. They contend that such legislative restrictions cannot override the explicit constitutional mandate to ensure the legitimacy of presidential elections. The case highlights ongoing tensions within Nigeria’s political landscape, particularly around the rules governing presidential candidacy and the role of independent electoral bodies. As the legal proceedings unfold, the outcome will likely influence future debates on electoral integrity and the interpretation of constitutional provisions. The court’s ruling could set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in subsequent elections. For now, the focus remains on the evidentiary process, with both sides awaiting the court’s determination on the validity of the allegations.