Admin l Tuesday, 09 August 2022
ABUJA, Nigeria – A Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja, has set aside September 7, to hear the suit filed against the Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Senator Bola Tinubu, over alleged forgery of certificate.
In the suit, now before Justice Ahmed Mohammed, the appellant is seeking relief to disqualify Asiwaju Tinubu from contesting the 2023 presidential election over allegation that he forged his certificate.
Justice Mohammed also granted an ex-parte order for substituted service on Tinubu, who is allegedly evading personal service of court processes.
The plaintiffs, mainly four chieftains of the APC, are praying the Court for an order disqualifying Tinubu from contesting or participating in the forthcoming 2023 presidential election, as the candidate of All Progressives Congress.
The chieftains filed the suit on grounds that the information Tinubu supplied to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, as the presidential candidate of the party, was inconsistent.
Counsel to the Plaintiff, Goddy Uche, told 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, in a brief ruling, ordered that the Court process to be served on the National Secretariat of APC and that such service shall be deemed as having been properly served on Bola Tinubu. In the suit, the plaintiffs had posed 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 prayed 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.”
Justice Muhammad however adjourned the case to September 7, for hearing.
