Tinubu NYSC Certificate Case: Ex-AGF Challenges Atiku’s Evidence, Seeks Dismissal

A fresh legal battle over President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election has shifted toward a preliminary question: whether Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) have provided enough evidence and have the legal standing to pursue the case.

Former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, who is leading Tinubu’s legal team, has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss the suit challenging the President’s eligibility over an alleged forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate.

The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was filed by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). It seeks, among other reliefs, Tinubu’s disqualification from the 2027 presidential election.

The allegations remain unproven and are currently before the court.

Tinubu’s legal team questions the foundation of the forgery allegation

At the centre of Olujinmi’s preliminary objection is the argument that Atiku and the ADC have not supplied sufficient evidence from the authority allegedly responsible for issuing the disputed certificate.

According to the defence, the plaintiffs have not produced evidence from the NYSC formally denying that it issued a discharge certificate to Tinubu. The defence also argues that the original document from which the alleged forgery was supposedly made has not been produced.

Olujinmi therefore described the allegation as speculative and argued that the plaintiffs cannot establish forgery merely by pointing to questions surrounding the document.

The former AGF further contends that because forgery carries criminal implications, the allegation must meet the applicable evidentiary standard required for criminal accusations.

What Atiku is alleging

Atiku’s case centres on an NYSC discharge certificate which he alleges was submitted to INEC as part of Tinubu’s qualification documents.

The plaintiffs have questioned the name appearing on the disputed certificate, which they say reads “Tinubu Bola Adekunle.” Atiku argues that the discrepancy raises questions about the authenticity and ownership of the document.

In his affidavit, Atiku also alleged that the document had been used in connection with Tinubu’s political career dating back to his 1999 Lagos State governorship bid.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the alleged submission of the document breached constitutional provisions concerning the presentation of forged certificates to the electoral commission.

However, none of these allegations has been judicially established.

APC also rejects the allegation

The defence has not limited its response to the evidentiary question.

In a joint counter-affidavit, APC Director of Legal Services Sanusi Samaila denied that Tinubu submitted a forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential election.

The APC also disputes the claim that Tinubu submitted Form CF001 to INEC in the manner alleged by the plaintiffs.

The party maintains that the NYSC has never disowned the discharge certificate attributed to Tinubu and that the documents submitted to INEC were authentic and accepted by the electoral commission.

The defence further stated that APC submitted its candidates’ names to INEC on June 26, while INEC acknowledged receipt of Tinubu’s profile on July 11.

Defence raises another obstacle: who can challenge the nomination?

Beyond the certificate itself, Tinubu’s lawyers are challenging the legal basis on which Atiku and the ADC brought the action.

Olujinmi argues that Atiku was not an APC member and did not participate in the party’s presidential primary that produced Tinubu as its candidate.

On that basis, the defence contends that Atiku lacks the legal standing to challenge APC’s internal nomination process as a pre-election matter.

The defence has also argued that some aspects of the case were filed outside the time allowed for challenging the submission of nomination documents to INEC.

These procedural arguments could become just as important as the underlying certificate allegation because the court may have to determine whether the case is legally competent before reaching the substantive dispute.

How the case got here

The dispute comes as preparations for the 2027 presidential election intensify.

Atiku, now associated with the ADC, filed the suit seeking judicial intervention over Tinubu’s eligibility. The case names Tinubu, APC and INEC as defendants.

At a September 1 proceeding, the court adjourned the matter to September 28, 2026, after issues surrounding service of the court processes were raised. Reports from the proceeding also indicate that Justice Inyang Ekwo cautioned lawyers involved in the case against discussing the matter in the media or on social media.

The September 28 date therefore becomes the next major point in the legal dispute.

Why the case matters

The case has implications beyond the personal political contest between Atiku and Tinubu.

A ruling in favour of the plaintiffs could potentially affect Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election. Conversely, if the court accepts the defence’s preliminary objections or rejects the substantive claims, the challenge could be significantly weakened or brought to an end at the Federal High Court level.

For now, however, the court has not ruled that Tinubu submitted a forged NYSC certificate, nor has it dismissed the allegations as false.

That distinction is important as the case continues because the competing claims from both sides are still matters for judicial determination.

What happens next?

The case is scheduled to return before Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja on September 28, 2026.

The court will have to consider the procedural and substantive issues raised by the parties as the litigation progresses. The outcome of those proceedings will determine whether the case advances toward a full determination of Atiku’s allegations or faces dismissal on preliminary grounds.

For now, the central legal questions remain whether the plaintiffs have established a sufficient evidentiary basis for the forgery claim and whether they have the legal standing to challenge Tinubu’s nomination in the manner presented.

The allegations against President Tinubu should therefore be treated as allegations until the court reaches a definitive decision.