The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned until September 28 for further proceedings in a suit seeking to disqualify President Bola Ahmed Tinubu from contesting the 2027 presidential election over allegations of certificate forgery.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was filed by former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar.
The ADC is joined as the second plaintiff, while President Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are listed as the first to third defendants.
In a 25-paragraph affidavit personally sworn to in support of the case, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to INEC as part of the documents used to establish his eligibility to contest the presidency.
Atiku specifically alleged that the certificate submitted to INEC bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, rather than the President’s actual name.
He told the court that the certificate, which was attached to the suit as Exhibit P2, was not obtained by Tinubu and amounted to a forgery.
Atiku further alleged that Tinubu had been presenting the disputed certificate since 1999, when he contested the Lagos State governorship election.
Among other reliefs, the plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the alleged submission of a forged certificate violates Section 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution and whether Tinubu and the APC should consequently be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
They are also seeking a declaration that Tinubu breached the Constitution by allegedly presenting the disputed certificate to INEC during his 1999 governorship bid, as well as an order barring him and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
When the matter came up on Tuesday, a legal team led by Omosanya Popoola announced its appearance for President Tinubu.
However, Atiku’s counsel, Joseph Onu, informed the court that the plaintiffs had not been able to serve Tinubu with a copy of the originating processes.
Although Popoola assured the court that he had Tinubu’s authority to represent him, Onu insisted that, given the sensitive nature of the case, his client preferred personal service or an order for substituted service.
INEC’s counsel, Alex Iziyon, SAN, opposed the demand for personal service, arguing that the appearance of Tinubu’s counsel amounted to sufficient undertaking.
INEC also urged the court to expedite the hearing, stating that it was prepared to file its defence within 10 days.
After hearing from the parties, Justice Inyang Ekwo said the court could not dictate how the plaintiffs should conduct their case and subsequently adjourned the matter until September 28 for mention.
The judge also issued a stern warning against discussing the details of the pending case in the media.
Justice Ekwo cautioned that any lawyer whose party discusses the case on social media or other media platforms would be held responsible, warning that the court would take “very drastic action” against such conduct.
Comments