A former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, has rejected the allegation that President Bola Tinubu used a forged National Youth Service Corps, NYSC, discharge certificate to qualify for the 2027 presidential election.
Olujinmi, who is now leading Tinubu’s legal team in the suit filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress, ADC, described the allegation as unfounded, speculative and unsupported by evidence from the NYSC.
The senior lawyer made the position known in a preliminary objection filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja, where he asked the court to dismiss the suit seeking Tinubu’s disqualification from the 2027 presidential election.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was instituted by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress, APC, and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
Atiku and the ADC are challenging Tinubu’s eligibility on the claim that he submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC.
They are relying on constitutional provisions relating to the presentation of forged certificates to the electoral commission.
The plaintiffs have alleged that the disputed NYSC certificate bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” and questioned its connection with the President.
However, Olujinmi argued that the allegation could not be sustained merely on the basis of questions surrounding the name on the document.
According to the former AGF, the plaintiffs failed to present evidence from the NYSC showing that the organisation did not issue the certificate to Tinubu.
He also faulted Atiku and the ADC for failing to produce the original document from which the alleged forgery was supposedly made.
The lawyer maintained that where a document is alleged to have been forged, the issuing authority remains central to establishing whether the document is genuine or otherwise.
He therefore argued that without evidence from the NYSC disclaiming the certificate, the allegation remained speculative.
Olujinmi further submitted that forgery is a criminal allegation and must meet the required standard of proof.
He contended that the plaintiffs had not supplied evidence capable of establishing such an allegation beyond reasonable doubt.
Atiku, who is now seeking the presidency under the ADC, wants the court to determine whether Tinubu can participate in the next presidential election in view of the alleged certificate issue.
The former vice president and the ADC have also questioned the legal framework governing who can institute a pre-election challenge against a candidate.
But Olujinmi argued that Atiku lacked the legal standing to maintain the case because he was not a member of the APC and did not participate in the party’s presidential primary that produced Tinubu as its candidate.
He maintained that the nomination of a candidate by a political party is largely an internal affair of that party, subject to the provisions of the Constitution and relevant electoral laws.
The former AGF also raised a timing issue against the case.
He argued that any challenge relating to documents submitted to INEC ought to have been brought within the period prescribed by law.
According to him, parts of Atiku’s case were statute-barred because the alleged submission of Tinubu’s documents to INEC was not challenged within the required 14-day period.
Olujinmi therefore urged the Federal High Court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that it was incompetent and speculative.
He also argued that Atiku had not demonstrated how his legal rights were directly affected by Tinubu’s nomination as the APC presidential candidate.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed in support of the preliminary objection, the APC also denied that Tinubu submitted a forged certificate to INEC.
The affidavit was deposed to by the APC Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila.
Samaila maintained that Tinubu did not submit Form CF001 to INEC in the manner alleged by Atiku and the ADC.
He further stated that the NYSC had never denied issuing a discharge certificate to Tinubu.
According to the counter-affidavit, the documents submitted by Tinubu to INEC were authentic and were accepted by the electoral commission.
The APC legal official also argued that INEC subsequently published Tinubu’s particulars as the party’s presidential candidate after receiving the documents.
The defence further challenged Atiku’s right to question the APC’s nomination of Tinubu, pointing out that Atiku was neither an APC member nor a participant in the party’s presidential primary.
The APC argued that the plaintiffs were effectively challenging matters connected to the party’s internal nomination process rather than establishing a breach of any constitutional or electoral obligation by INEC.
The counter-affidavit also addressed the timeline surrounding the submission of the APC’s candidates.
It stated that the party submitted the names of its candidates to INEC on June 26, while the commission acknowledged receipt of Tinubu’s profile on July 11.
The defendants consequently asked the court to reject the claims and dismiss the case.
The Federal High Court has not yet determined the substantive allegation of forgery.
At the most recent proceeding, Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the matter until September 28 for further proceedings.
The adjournment followed a disagreement over service of the court documents on Tinubu.
Atiku’s legal team had told the court that the President had not been personally served and insisted on personal service or an appropriate order for substituted service.
Tinubu’s lawyer, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, had indicated that he was authorised to represent the President and was prepared to receive the processes on his behalf.
Counsel to INEC, Alex Iziyon, SAN, also urged the court to allow the matter to proceed, arguing that the appearance of Tinubu’s counsel showed that the President was already aware of the case.
Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned the matter to September 28.
The judge also warned lawyers involved in the case against discussing the matter in the media or on social media.
“This case is to be conducted in court and not in the media, whether it is regular or social,” the judge said.
“If this case is discussed on social media, I will hold counsel for the party responsible, and I will take very drastic action.”
.
