Court fixes September 7 for hearing on Tinubu’s alleged Certificate Forgery Suit  

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Monday fixed September 7 for the hearing of a suit of alleged forged certificate against the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Tinubu.

The presiding judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, granted an ex-parte order for substituted service on Tinubu who had invaded personal service of court processes, fixed the hearing for September 7. The suit is seeking the disqualification of Tinubu from the 2023 general elections because of the alleged forged certificates.

The Plaintiffs comprising four members of the ruling APC are requesting the court to grant an order disqualifying Tinubu from contesting or participating in the 2023 presidential election as a candidate of All Progressives Congress on the grounds of the information he provided to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the presidential candidate of the party.

Counsel to the Plaintiff, Goddy Uche, notified the court that substituted service has become necessary because all attempts to serve the presidential candidate have proved abortive as he cannot be reached.

The Vacation Judge, Justice Mohammed, in his brief ruling directed that the Court process be served on the National Secretariat of APC and that such service shall be deemed as having been properly served on Bola Tinubu.

The judge, thereafter, adjourned the suit to September 7, for a hearing.

The plaintiffs presented the following questions for determination: Whether having regard to the provision of sections 1 (3); 4(1)and 2; 14(1),(2)(a), and (c)and 42(1)(a)and (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 (as amended), the provision of section 29(5)of the Electoral Act, 2022 as enacted by the 4th Defendant which modified the provision section 31(5) of the Electoral Act,2010(as amended) is not ultra vires the 4th Defendant and therefore unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatever.

Whether having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Modibbo Vs Usman (2020) 3 NWLR(PT.1712)470 and the provision of section 137(1)(j) the 3rd Defendant has not presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) the 1st Defendant and thereby disqualified from participating in the forthcoming 2023 Presidential General Election.

They also requested that upon the favourable determination of the above questions, for the  following reliefs:

A declaration of the Court that the provision of section 29(5) of the Electoral Act,2022 is ultra vires the 4th Defendant and unconstitutional, null, void, and of no effect whatsoever.

An order of the Court striking out/striking down the provision of section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2022 from the Electoral Act and the body of extant laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria same being ultra vires the 4th and 5th Defendants, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

A declaration that the 3rd Defendant has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission for the purpose of seeking to be elected into the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

A declaration that the 3rd defendant stands disqualified from participating in the 2023 presidential election as a candidate of the 2nd Defendant has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission for the purpose of seeking to be elected into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

An order disqualifying the 3rd Defendant from contesting or participating in the forthcoming 2023 Presidential general election as a candidate of the 2nd Defendant.

In a 33-paragraph affidavit in support of the suit deposed to by Ibiang Miko Ibiang the plaintiffs averted that Tinubu falsely swore to an affidavit in 1999 in which he claimed to have attended St. Paul Aroloya Children Home School, Ibadan -1958-64 and Government College, Ibadan -1965-68 and presented same to INEC.

That the deposition had turned out to be false and that in order to conceal the falsity of the information he submitted to INEC, he had omitted to provide any information whatsoever relating to his primary and Secondary schools in his INEC form for the 2023 election.