2027: Atiku’s suit against Tinubu’s eligibility an abuse of court process – INEC
The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has said the suit filed by the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, Atiku Abubakar, against President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 election is an abuse of court process.
The electoral body, in it objection and counter-affidavit, filed by Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, said Atiku’s suit failed to disclose reasonable cause of action and as a result should be dismissed. The electoral umpire insisted that the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute the matter before the court
INEC described the suit as hypothetical, academic and a gross abuse of the court process.
In the counter-affidavit deposed to by Ayuba Mohammed, an Administrative Officer in its Litigation and Prosecution Department, INEC said it does not nominate candidates for political parties and does not originate, manufacture or procure the personal certificates or credentials submitted by candidates or their sponsoring political parties.
The electoral commission said it receives documents submitted in respect of candidates in the discharge of its constitutional and statutory responsibilities, adding that the records are dealt with in accordance with the Constitution, the Electoral Act, 2026, and applicable regulations and guidelines.
Izinyon, in the counter-affidavit, said contrary to the impression conveyed in paragraphs 9-12 of the plaintiffs’ supporting affidavit, the mere receipt or custody by INEC of a document submitted by or in respect of a candidate does not constitute a judicial or administrative determination as to the authenticity of every statement or credential contained therein.
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 prescribes qualifications and disqualifications applicable to candidates for 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 dragged Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress, APC, and INEC before the court praying for the disqualification of Tinubu from the 2027 presidential election on various eligibility grounds.
The ADC presidential candidate had deposed to an affidavit in support of his suit challenging Tinubu’s qualification to contest the election.
Atiku is urging the court to invoke sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026 to determine whether Tinubu can participate in the election,
The three defendants in the suit are Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress, APC, and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
Atiku argued that Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution provides that a person shall not be qualified for election to the Office of President if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC, and asked the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from the 2027 presidential election over the NYSC certificate presented to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
In his affidavit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted to INEC an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which, according to him, is different from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The affidavit further alleged that the NYSC certificate submitted in connection with the 2027 presidential election is not a certificate obtained by Tinubu.
Atiku also placed INEC on notice to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001, submitted in connection with 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 challenging provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which restrict who may challenge the qualification of a candidate at pre-election stage and the removal of qualification as a ground for questioning an election as envisaged by Section 139(a)(i) of the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly to make laws allowing the questioning of whether a person elected into the office of President is qualified.
According to Atiku and the ADC, the legislation cannot be used to shut the door against enforcement of an express constitutional provision on the ground that where an Act of the National Assembly conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail.
The originating summons asked the Federal High Court to determine whether the statutory restrictions complained of can prevent the plaintiffs from invoking Section 137(1)(j), and ultimately whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the plaintiffs’ case is established.
Atiku therefore asked the court for an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the election.
