The All Progressives Congress (APC) and President Bola Tinubu on Thursday, September 10, asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss, in its entirety, a suit filed by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of African Democratic Congress (ADC).
Atiku and the ADC had sued President Tinubu, APC and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over allegation that the president presented a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to INEC.
Atiku and his party, therefore, sought a court order disqualifying Tinubu and APC from the 2027 presidential election.
In a joint counter affidavit filed on Thursday, Tinubu and APC denied submitting any forged certificate to the commission either for the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
The APC Director of Legal Services, Mr Sanusi Samaila, who deposed to the counter affidavit dated September 8, averred that President Tinubu did not submit any Form CF001 to INEC for 2023 or 2027 poll as claimed by the plaintiffs.
“The first defendant (Tinubu) emphatically denies the plaintiffs’ allegation of forgery and submission of forged certificate to the third defendant (INEC) for 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.”
According to Samaila, the NYSC has never denied issuing National Youth service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to Tinubu at the end of his service year.
“None of the documents the first defendant submitted to the third defendant for the 2023 and the coming 2027 presidential elections was forged.
The APC legal director argued that contrary to Paragraph 27 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, no constitutional provision had been breached nor had any injustice been done to the plaintiffs by the first and second defendant’s action of submission of the president’s personal particulars to INEC.
He said Atiku was neither a member of APC nor an aspirant in the party’s presidential primary election conducted in May at which Tinubu emerged as its presidential candidate.
Looking at Atiku and ADC’s claims on Tinubu’s eligibility and his nomination as APC’s candidate, Samaila submitted that none of the plaintiffs participated in the party’s primary or process of nomination of its presidential candidate.
He said by a letter dated June 26 attached as Exhibit APC 1, the party submitted the names of its candidates for the 2027 presidential and other elections to the electoral umpire.
He said INEC, by a copy of the acknowledgment of receipt of the profile of Tinubu which was attached as Exhibit APC 2, confirmed submission of the first defendant’s profile as presidential candidate on July 11.
In a written address attached to the application and filed by Chief Akin Olujinmi, the senior lawyer raised a number of objections to the originating summons.
Olujinmi observed that though the plaintiffs’ complaint is an allegation of forgery which is no doubt a crime, he said such allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, citing Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, among others.
“It is a settied law that the evidence required to prove that a certificate is forged is a disclaimer from the institution that Is said to have issued the certificate,” he said, citing a previous Supreme Court decision to back his argument.
According to him, without evidence from the institution or body that is purported to have issued the certificate or other document stating that it did not issue the certificate or document or that any part of the certificate or document is not made by it, it would be idle and useless to contend that it is forged.
He said the apex court had also held that “in order to prove forgery, or that a document is forged, two documents must be produced viz: the document from which the forgery was (a) made; and (b) the forgery or the forged document.”
Olujinmi, however, submitted that in the instant case, Atiku and ADC had produced no evidence from NYSC Directorate disclaiming issuance of discharge certificate to the 1st defendant.
Besides, he said they had also not produced the document from which the alleged forgery was made and the alleged forged NYSC discharge certificate.
“We submit further that this being a declaratory action, the plaintiffs have the burden to prove their case.
“A declaratory relief is not granted by the court as a matter of course,” he said.
The lawyer, who argued that all the five questions raised by Atiku for determination were hypothetical and academic in nature, submitted that the the case is not found on any real facts.
According to him, it is clear from this provision that the period of 14 days should be counted from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of.
“The question that follows from this is what time were the particulars of the 1st defendant submitted to the 3rd defendant?” he asked.
Olujinmi, therefore, urged the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the case.
Justice Inyang Ekwo. after hearing the arguments, adjourned the matter till September 28 for further hearing.
