Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, on Friday appeared personally at the Federal High Court Registry in Abuja, where he swore to an affidavit supporting a suit challenging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s qualification to contest the 2027 presidential election.
The development was disclosed in a statement by Atiku’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu.
According to the statement, Atiku and the ADC filed the suit against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The case relies on Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, alongside provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
The suit centres on Section 137(1)(j), which states that a person is not qualified to contest for president if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC. The plaintiffs want the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified over an allegation that Tinubu submitted a forged NYSC certificate to INEC for the 2023 and 2027 elections.
Speaking after taking the oath, Atiku said his appearance at the registry 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. 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,” Shabby quoted him as saying.
In his affidavit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which the plaintiffs say differs from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The affidavit also alleges that the same certificate was submitted for the 2027 election and argues that it was not obtained by Tinubu.
Atiku has also asked INEC to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 for the 2023 and 2027 elections. The statement said Atiku had requested certified true copies before filing the case but received no response when the court processes were prepared.
“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.
“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.
The statement said Atiku and the ADC are also challenging parts of the Electoral Act, 2026, which they argue restrict who can challenge a candidate’s qualification before an election and remove qualification as a ground for questioning an election under Section 139(a)(i) of the Constitution.
Their position is that ordinary legislation cannot block enforcement of a constitutional provision and that the Constitution must prevail where a law conflicts with it.
“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? 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 said.
The originating summons asks the Federal High Court to determine whether the restrictions can stop the plaintiffs from relying on Section 137(1)(j), and whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified if the plaintiffs prove their case.
Atiku further said: “Nobody should misunderstand what is at stake. 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. 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.”
He said the case also requires INEC to show its neutrality by making the relevant records available to the court.
“INEC is holding the documents. The court has the jurisdiction to examine the issues. President Tinubu has the opportunity to defend himself. That is the constitutional process, and nobody should be afraid of it. The 2027 election must begin with clarity about the qualification of those seeking the Presidency. Nigerians should not be asked to vote first and investigate later,” he said.
Atiku said his decision to personally swear to the affidavit showed his willingness to face the same constitutional standards he demands from others.
“I have sworn to my case before the law. I am prepared to be held accountable for what I have placed before the court. President Tinubu should equally be prepared to answer the case against him before the law.
This is not about privilege, personalities or presidential power. It is about one Constitution and one standard for every Nigerian. Nobody is above the Constitution — not Atiku Abubakar, not Bola Tinubu, and certainly not the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Edwin Inegedu, SAN, and Joseph Onu Silas, Esq., expressed confidence in the case. Silas Onu said the legal team had reviewed the law carefully and presented its arguments before the court, adding that they were ready to respond to the defendants once served.
