A fresh legal battle over who can legitimately appear on the ballot in 2027 has opened in Abuja, with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar asking the Federal High Court to determine whether President Bola Ahmed Tinubu meets the constitutional requirements to seek re-election.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), personally appeared at the Federal High Court Registry in Abuja on Friday to swear to an affidavit backing the suit he and his party filed against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
But the case is not merely about an alleged discrepancy in an NYSC certificate. Atiku has placed the wider architecture of Nigeria’s electoral law on trial, challenging whether provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026 can prevent citizens from invoking constitutional provisions on the qualification of a presidential candidate.
At the heart of the suit is Section 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution, which disqualifies a person who has presented a forged certificate to INEC from contesting the presidency.
Atiku is asking the court to determine whether Tinubu should be barred from the 2027 presidential election if the allegations surrounding the certificate are established.
In his affidavit, Atiku alleges that an NYSC discharge certificate submitted to INEC bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, rather than Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and contends that the certificate was not obtained by the President.
The allegations are now before the court for judicial determination, with Atiku insisting that the controversy should be settled by evidence rather than political arguments.
His decision to personally swear to the affidavit was deliberate.
“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 said.
“I cannot ask Nigerians to respect the Constitution while treating a matter of this magnitude casually. I have therefore put my name, my signature and my oath behind the facts we are presenting to the court. Now it is President Tinubu’s turn to answer them.”
A major element of the case is Atiku’s demand that INEC produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted for the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
Atiku said he had sought certified true copies of the relevant records before filing the action but had not received a response when the court processes were prepared.
He argued that INEC’s possession of the documents makes the electoral commission central to resolving the controversy.
“This is precisely why we have gone to court. We are not asking Nigerians to decide this matter on social media, and we are not asking INEC to become a court. We are asking the institution holding the records to produce them and the judiciary to examine the evidence and pronounce on it,” he said.
Atiku said the court should establish whether the names on the disputed certificate refer to the same person and whether the certificate was legitimately obtained.
“If the certificate belongs to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, let that be established before the court. If ‘Tinubu Bola Adekunle’ and ‘Bola Ahmed Tinubu’ are one and the same person for the purpose of that certificate, let the evidence establish it,” he added.
The more far-reaching aspect of the action is Atiku’s challenge to provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
The ADC candidate argues that the National Assembly cannot use ordinary legislation to restrict access to a right expressly recognised by the Constitution.
He specifically invoked Section 139(1)(a)(i), which empowers the National Assembly to make laws concerning the qualification of a person elected President.
Atiku’s position is that where the Electoral Act conflicts with an express constitutional provision, the Constitution must prevail.
That argument could turn the case into a broader test of the limits of electoral legislation and the supremacy of the Constitution.
“This case therefore raises a fundamental question for our democracy. Can an Act of the National Assembly be used as a shield against an express provision of the Constitution?” Atiku asked.
“Can we write into ordinary legislation an escape route from a constitutional standard applicable to everyone seeking the Presidency? Our position is that the Constitution remains supreme.”
Atiku also framed the case as a question of equality before the law, arguing that the standards applied to ordinary Nigerians should not disappear when the person involved is seeking the highest office in the country.
“Nigerian graduates cannot complete NYSC documentation with one identity and simply ask employers to ignore discrepancies. Young Nigerians seeking ordinary jobs are subjected to rigorous scrutiny of their certificates,” he said.
“The standard cannot suddenly disappear because the applicant is seeking the highest office in the land. The Presidency is not an immunity certificate against constitutional scrutiny.”
The former Vice President said the case was designed to ensure that Nigerians do not go into the 2027 election without clarity over the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Nigerians should not be asked to vote first and investigate later,” he said.
The plaintiffs are seeking, among other reliefs, an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the allegations contained in their case are established.
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Edwin Inegedu, SAN, and Joseph Onu Silas, expressed confidence in the case, saying the legal team had carefully examined the relevant constitutional and electoral provisions.
Silas said the case offered the judiciary an opportunity to further develop Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence.
“This is not about privilege, personalities or presidential power. It is about one Constitution and one standard for every Nigerian,” he said.
“Nobody is above the Constitution — not Atiku Abubakar, not Bola Tinubu, and certainly not the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”