INEC Dismisses Atiku’s Suit Seeking Tinubu’s Disqualification as Abuse of Court Process
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has described a suit filed by the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, seeking the disqualification of President Bola Tinubu from the 2027 presidential election as an abuse of court process.
INEC, in its objection and counter-affidavit filed through its counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, argued that Atiku’s suit failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action and should therefore be dismissed.
The electoral commission also maintained that Atiku lacked the locus standi to institute the action, describing the suit as hypothetical, academic and a gross abuse of the judicial process.
In the counter-affidavit deposed to by Ayuba Mohammed, an Administrative Officer in INEC’s Litigation and Prosecution Department, the commission said it does not nominate candidates for political parties.
It also stated that it neither originates, manufactures nor procures the personal certificates or credentials submitted by candidates or their sponsoring political parties.
According to INEC, it merely receives documents submitted in respect of candidates as part of its constitutional and statutory responsibilities and handles such records in accordance with the Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026, and applicable regulations and guidelines.
Izinyon further argued that the mere receipt or custody of a document submitted by or in respect of a candidate does not amount to a judicial or administrative determination by INEC on the authenticity of every statement or credential contained in the document.
He said the commission admitted only to the extent that Atiku is the presidential candidate of the ADC and that the Constitution prescribes qualifications and disqualifications for candidates seeking elective offices.
Responding to Atiku’s reliance on Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution, Izinyon said the provision applies to a person who is proved, in accordance with the law, to have presented a forged certificate to INEC.
He argued that a mere allegation that a forged certificate was presented, without proof that the document was actually presented and that it was forged, could not automatically trigger the constitutional disqualification.
Izinyon added that, for the 2027 presidential election, the APC submitted the name and particulars of Tinubu to INEC 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 Federal High Court, seeking an order disqualifying the President from contesting the 2027 presidential election on several eligibility grounds.
The ADC presidential candidate, in an affidavit supporting the suit, asked the court to determine whether Tinubu is qualified to participate in the election, relying on Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, as well as relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
Atiku specifically argued that Section 137(1)(j) provides that a person is not qualified for election as President if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC.
He therefore asked the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified over an NYSC discharge certificate allegedly submitted to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
According to Atiku’s affidavit, the NYSC certificate submitted to INEC bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which he said differs from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
He further alleged that the NYSC certificate submitted in connection with the 2027 election was not 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.
He argued that the court should establish whether the certificate belongs to Bola Ahmed Tinubu and whether “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” and “Bola Ahmed Tinubu” refer to the same person for the purpose of the certificate.
Atiku and the ADC are also challenging provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 that restrict who may challenge a candidate’s qualification at the pre-election stage and remove qualification as a ground for questioning an election under Section 139(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution.
They argued that such statutory restrictions cannot prevent the enforcement of an express constitutional provision, insisting that where an Act of the National Assembly conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution should prevail.
In the originating summons, Atiku and the ADC asked the Federal High Court to determine whether the provisions of the Electoral Act can prevent them from invoking Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution.
They also want the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election if their allegations are established.
Atiku is ultimately seeking an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
