Keep up with the latest news and be part of our weekly giveaways and airtime sharing; follow our WhatsApp channel for more updates. Click to Follow us

The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has described the suit filed by African Democratic Congress, ADC, presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 election as an abuse of court process.

In its objection and counter-affidavit filed by Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, the electoral body argued that Atiku’s case failed to establish a reasonable cause of action and should therefore be dismissed. INEC also maintained that the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute the action.

The electoral umpire characterised the suit as hypothetical, academic and a gross abuse of the judicial process.

In a counter-affidavit deposed to by Ayuba Mohammed, an Administrative Officer in its Litigation and Prosecution Department, INEC explained that it does not nominate candidates for political parties or originate, manufacture or obtain the personal certificates and credentials submitted by candidates or their sponsoring parties.

The commission said it only receives documents submitted in respect of candidates as part of its constitutional and statutory duties, adding that such records are handled in line with the Constitution, the Electoral Act, 2026, and relevant regulations and guidelines.

Izinyon, in the counter-affidavit, argued that contrary to the impression created in paragraphs 9-12 of the plaintiffs’ supporting affidavit, INEC’s mere receipt or custody of a document submitted by or concerning a candidate does not amount to a judicial or administrative finding on the authenticity of every statement or credential contained in the document.

Izinyon said paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 of the plaintiffs’ affidavit are admitted only to the extent that the 1st plaintiff is the presidential candidate of the 2nd plaintiff and that the Constitution sets out qualifications and disqualifications applicable to candidates seeking elective offices.

He said, “In answer to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaintiffs’ affidavit, section 137(1)(}) of the Constitution speaks for itself and applies in accordance with its terms to a person who is proved, in accordance with law, to have presented a forged certificate to the 3rd Defendant.

“The 3rd Defendant denies any suggestion that a mere allegation that a forged certificate was presented, without proof of the fact of presentation and of the alleged forgery, automatically activates the constitutional disqualification prescribed by section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution.

“In respect of the 2027 Presidential Election, the 2nd Defendant submitted the name and particulars of the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant as its nominated presidential candidate in accordance with the prescribed nomination process.”

Atiku had sued Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress, APC, and INEC, seeking the President’s disqualification from the 2027 presidential election on several eligibility grounds.

The ADC presidential candidate had also sworn to an affidavit supporting his legal challenge to Tinubu’s qualification to contest the election.

Atiku is asking the court to apply sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, alongside relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, to determine whether Tinubu is eligible to participate in the election.

The three defendants named in the suit are Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress, APC, and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

Atiku contended that Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution disqualifies a person from being elected President if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC, and asked the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be barred from the 2027 election over an NYSC certificate allegedly presented to INEC in relation to the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.

In his affidavit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted an NYSC discharge certificate to INEC bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which he said differs from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The affidavit also alleged that the NYSC certificate submitted in relation to the 2027 presidential election was not obtained by Tinubu.

Atiku further put INEC on notice to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted for the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.

“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. These are questions that deserve answers, not political insults or presidential silence,” he added.

Atiku and the ADC are also contesting provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which limit who can challenge a candidate’s qualification at the pre-election stage and remove qualification as a basis for challenging an election under Section 139(a)(i) of the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly to enact laws allowing questions concerning whether a person elected President is qualified.

According to Atiku and the ADC, the legislation cannot be relied upon to prevent enforcement of an explicit constitutional provision, arguing that where an Act of the National Assembly conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution takes precedence.

The originating summons asked the Federal High Court to determine whether the statutory limitations being challenged can prevent the plaintiffs from invoking Section 137(1)(j), and ultimately whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from the 2027 presidential election if the plaintiffs establish their case.

Atiku consequently asked the court to issue an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the election.

Please don’t forget to “Allow the notification” so you will be the first to get our gist when we publish it. 
Drop your comment in the section below, and don’t forget to share the post.