2027: Tinubu and APC pray court to dismiss Atiku’s alleged forgery suit

The All Progressives Congress (APC) and President Bola Tinubu have asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss in its entirety the suit filed by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Action Democratic Congress (ADC).

THE News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Atiku and ADC had, in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, sued President Tinubu, APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over the allegation that the President had submitted a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to INEC.

Atiku, former Vice President, and his party, therefore, sought a court order disqualifying Tinubu and APC (1st and 2nd defendants) from the 2027 presidential elections.

In a joint counter-affidavit filed on Thursday, September 9, Tinubu and APC denied submitting any forged certificate to the Commission for the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.

The Director of Legal Services of the APC, Sanusi Samaila, who deposed in the counter affidavit dated September 8, said President Tinubu did not submit any form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or 2027 poll as alleged by the complainants.

“The first defendant (Tinubu) categorically denies the allegation of forgery and the submission of forged certificates by the appellants to the third defendant (INEC) for the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.”

According to Samaila, the NYSC never denied that it issued the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to the first defendant at the end of his service year.

“None of the documents submitted by the first defendant to the third defendant for the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections were forged.

“The 1st defendant’s educational qualification and National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to INEC were acceptable to INEC which later published his name and details as the 2nd defendant’s presidential candidate in the 2023 presidential election and the upcoming 2027 presidential election as stated in paragraph 14 of the plaintiffs’ affidavit,” they said.

The Legal Director of the APC submitted that contrary to paragraph 27 of the affidavit in support of the original summons, no constitutional provision had been violated nor had any injustice been done to the plaintiffs by the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in submitting the President’s personal details to INEC.

He said Atiku was neither a member of the APC nor an aspirant in the party’s presidential primary elections conducted in May in which Tinubu emerged as its presidential candidate.

Noting the claims of Atiku and ADC on the eligibility of Tinubu and his nomination as the candidate of the APC, Samaila said none of the complainants participated in the party primaries or the nomination process of its presidential candidate.

“The appellants do not allege in this suit any violation of the provisions of the Electoral Act or the 1999 Constitution by the 1st and 2nd defendants but only complain about the nomination and submission of the name of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant (INEC) for the upcoming presidential elections in 2027.

“Furthermore, the appellants do not challenge any decision, action or activity of INEC in this case,” he said.

In a letter dated June 26 attached as APC Exhibit 1, he said the party has submitted the names of its candidates for the 2027 presidential election and other elections to the electoral umpire.

He said INEC, through a copy of the profile receipt of Tinubu attached as APC Exhibit 2, confirmed the submission of the profile of the first defendant as a presidential candidate on July 11.

In a written submission attached to the application and submitted by Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, the senior lawyer raised a number of objections to the original subpoena.

Olujinmi noted that although the plaintiffs’ complaint is an allegation of forgery which is undoubtedly a crime, he said that such allegation must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, citing, among others, Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.

“It is settled law that the evidence required to prove that a certificate is counterfeit is a disclaimer from the institution that is said to have issued the certificate,” he said, citing an earlier Supreme Court decision to support his contention.

According to him, without evidence from the institution or body purported to have issued the certificate or other document that it did not issue the certificate or document or that any part of the certificate or document was not produced by it, it would be idle and useless to argue that it is counterfeit.

He said the Supreme Court also held that “to prove forgery, or that a document is forged, two documents must be produced, namely: the document from which the forgery was made (a) and (b) the forgery or forged document.”

Olujinmi, however, argued that in the present case Atiku and ADC had failed to produce any evidence from the NYSC management, denying the issuance of the discharge certificate to the first defendant.

Furthermore, he said that they had not even produced the document from which the alleged forgery had been made and the allegedly forged NYSC discharge certificate.

“We further argue that since this is a declaratory action, the plaintiffs have the burden of proving their case.

“Declaratory relief is not granted by the court as a matter of course,” he said.

The lawyer, who argued that all five questions raised by Atiku for determination were hypothetical and academic in nature, argued that the suit is not based on any actual fact.

“It is purely imaginary. The plaintiffs have not shown in their affidavit that they have suffered any violation of their civil rights and obligations by any act of the 2nd defendant,” Silk further said.

He further submitted that the appellants’ Finding 4 is barred by law, as they should have filed their complaint regarding the 2023 and 2027 elections within 14 days of submitting the allegedly falsified certificates, but failed to do so.

According to him, it follows from this provision that the 14-day period should be counted from the date on which the contested event, decision or action occurred.

“The question that follows is: at what time were the details of the first defendant presented to the third defendant?” he asked.

He argued that since Finding 5 is an appendix to Finding 4, it too should be struck out.

Olujinmi further said that the case is incompetent, being a pre-election matter.

According to him, for a pre-election proceeding to be competent, it must be justifiable within the definition of pre-election in Article 285(14) of the Constitution, read together with Article 29(5) of the Electoral Law. 2026.

“While Article 29(5) of the Election Law provides that only an aspirant who has participated in the primaries of a political party can file a suit in court to challenge the conduct of the primaries of the political party, Article 285(14) of the amended 1999 Constitution, has defined the matters that such an aspirant can complain about in a pre-election suit,” the SAN further said.

The senior lawyer argued that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the emergence of Tinubu as the candidate of the APC.

He said the Supreme Court has described such parties as “mere busybodies who do nothing but dabble and pry into the internal affairs of those other parties which, by law, do not directly influence their interests and preparation for elections,” he further argued.

According to him, the case is improperly constituted, as shown in Findings 2 and 3, where the appellants have 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.

Furthermore, he argued that the plaintiffs failed to join hands with the National Assembly which enacted the law and the Attorney General who is endowed with the constitutional authority to represent the State in matters for or against the State.

Olujinmi, therefore, urged the court to grant the preliminary objection and dismiss the case.

NAN reports that the matter is currently before Justice Inyang Ekwo.

The court has scheduled the hearing for September 28. NAN