Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has ordered that President Bola Tinubu be served within seven days with a suit seeking to stop him from contesting the 2027 presidential election over allegations that he submitted forged certificates to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

In a ruling, Justice Ekwo approved substituted service of the legal processes on Tinubu through his political party, the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The judge made the order after hearing a motion moved by counsel to Atiku Abubakar, Olanrewaju Omotayo-Ojo, who stood in for Silas Onu, who was said to be bereaved.

The suit was filed by Atiku, a former vice-president and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The ADC was joined as the second plaintiff, while Tinubu, the APC, and INEC were listed as the first, second, and third defendants, respectively.

In a 25-paragraph affidavit he personally deposed to in support of the suit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted a bogus National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to INEC in support of his qualification for the presidency.

The plaintiffs maintained that the President provided false information about himself in the Form CF0001 submitted to INEC. They drew the court’s attention to the fact that the NYSC certificate he submitted to the electoral body bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”.

“I know that the NYSC certificate is clearly not one obtained by the 1st defendant, as it belongs to one Adekunle,” Atiku said. “The said NYSC certificate, bearing the name Tinubu Bola Adekunle, is herein attached and marked as Exhibit P2.”

Atiku told the court that Tinubu had been parading the allegedly forged certificate since 1999, when he contested the Lagos State governorship election.

He urged the court, among other things, to determine:

“Whether, in view of the limitations in section 138(1)(a) & (b) of the Electoral Act, 2026, and section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), the Plaintiffs will not be allowed to enforce the binding provision of section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), which applies, mutatis mutandis, to all candidates aspiring to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

The plaintiffs also asked the court to determine:

“Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants should be disqualified for presenting a forged NYSC certificate to the 3rd Defendant for the 2023 and 2027 Presidential Elections, in breach of section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended).”

Following a favourable determination of the legal questions, the plaintiffs sought a “declaration that the 1st Defendant presented a forged certificate to the 3rd Defendant when he contested for Governor of Lagos State in 1999, and thereby breached the provision of section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended).”

They also sought “an order disqualifying the 1st and 2nd Defendants from participating in the 2027 Presidential Election, for presenting a forged certificate to the 3rd Defendant when the 1st Defendant contested for Governor of Lagos State in 1999.”

The court had earlier scheduled September 28 for the commencement of the full hearing.

INEC has since filed processes challenging the competence of the suit and urging the court to dismiss it.

However, two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) have filed processes as counsel for Tinubu.

Although the plaintiffs had insisted on personally serving the President, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, and Wole Olanipekun, SAN, a former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), have separately filed processes on behalf of the first defendant.

The two senior lawyers separately challenged the competence of the suit and Atiku’s locus standi, or legal right, to query the credentials Tinubu submitted to INEC. They cited provisions of Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2026.

In a counter-affidavit filed on Tinubu’s behalf, Olujinmi argued that Atiku’s case had become statute-barred, noting that the certificates were submitted to INEC before August 1 and that the 14-day period allowed for such litigation had elapsed.

He also argued that Atiku, as a member of the ADC, had no legal right to challenge what was done by the APC.

Similarly, Olanipekun, who also identified himself as Tinubu’s lawyer, filed a preliminary objection and a counter-affidavit seeking the dismissal of the suit, which he described as incompetent and a gross abuse of court process.

In a letter dated September 10 and addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court, the former NBA president said Tinubu had briefed him to lead a team of counsel to represent and defend his interests in the matter.