A former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, AGF, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, has told the Federal High Court in Abuja that the allegation of forgery of a National Youth Service Corps, NYSC, discharge certificate brought against President Bola Tinubu by Atiku Abubakar was unfounded, baseless and speculative.
Olujinmi, SAN, who has emerged as lead counsel for Tinubu in the eligibility suit, accused Atiku of failing to provide any iota of evidence from the NYSC before arriving at his allegation of forgery.
In a preliminary objection he filed against Atiku’s suit, which is seeking the disqualification of Tinubu from the 2027 presidential election, the ex-AGF faulted the former vice president on all fronts on the basis of the certificate forgery allegation.
In the court papers, the senior lawyer argued that both Atiku and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) failed to provide evidence from the NYSC disclaiming the issuance of the discharge certificate to Tinubu or produce the original document from which the alleged forgery was made.
Atiku and ADC have, in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, applied for an order of the court to disqualify Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the 2027 election on the ground that Tinubu submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to secure clearance for the election.
But while countering the allegation on behalf of Tinubu, Olujinmi submitted that, under established laws, a claim of forgery cannot stand without evidence from the issuing authority of the alleged forged document.
Besides, the former AGF argued that the allegation of forgery, being criminal in nature and content, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under the Evidence Act, but this had not been done by Atiku and ADC.
Olujinmi, SAN, contended that Atiku’s suit was speculative, having been based on hypothetical questions rather than established facts, as he had not shown how his legal rights had been infringed by Tinubu’s nomination.
He argued that parts of the suit were even statute-barred on the ground that any challenge to the submission of Tinubu’s documents to INEC ought to have been filed within 14 days of the submission.
According to him, the case was incompetent as a pre-election matter under the Constitution and the Electoral Act because only an aspirant who participated in a party’s primary could challenge its nomination process.
Holding that Atiku lacked the required legal rights to institute the suit, Olujinmi prayed the court to uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the suit in its entirety.
A joint counter-affidavit in support of the preliminary objection denied Atiku’s allegation, insisting that no forged certificate was submitted to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
The counter-affidavit was deposed to by APC’s Director of Legal Services, Mr Sanusi Samaila, who asserted that Tinubu did not submit Form CF001 to INEC as alleged by Atiku and ADC and maintained that the NYSC had never denied issuing Tinubu a discharge certificate.
According to the legal adviser, all documents submitted by Tinubu to INEC were authentic and accepted by the commission, after which it subsequently published the particulars of the APC’s candidate for both the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
The counter-affidavit indicated that Atiku lacked the legal right to challenge Tinubu’s nomination because he was neither a member of the APC nor a participant in the party’s presidential primary that produced Tinubu as its candidate.
According to the counter-affidavit, both Atiku and ADC were not challenging any action of INEC or alleging any breach of the Constitution or the Electoral Act, but were just questioning the APC’s nomination process as an internal affair of the party.
The counter-affidavit also indicated that the APC formally submitted the names of its candidates to INEC on June 26, while INEC acknowledged receipt of Tinubu’s profile on July 11. It therefore asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss the suit.
It will be recalled that Justice Inyang Ekwo, at the last proceedings, fixed September 28 for hearing of the matter.