Few days after it asked a Federal High Court to disqualify candidate of the All Progressive Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Tinubu in the 2023 presidential election over alleged forgery, the Action Alliance (AA) has again approached the same court for a similar order against Tinubu’s running mate, Mr. Ibrahim Masari.
Specifically, Action Alliance is asking the court to declare that the educational certificates the APC running mate claimed to possess in his form EC9 submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are all forged.
Tinubu had announced Masari as his deputy in a “Placeholder” capacity, to meet the deadline for submitting his nomination as the presidential candidate of the APC.
The concept of placeholder has continued to generate controversy, just as the revelation that Masari did not attach any certificate to support his educational qualification; on the grounds that the said certificates were missing.
However, the AA in a fresh suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/10972022 and filed on July 7, is alleging that Masari “Presented forged certificate to INEC and is therefore not qualified to be Vice Presidential candidate in the 2023 election”.
The suit which was filed on behalf of the party by Ukpai Ukairo has INEC, APC, Masari and Tinubu as 1st to 4th defendants respectively.
The plaintiff submitted that the defendants are bound jointly and severally by the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2022, to uphold the tenets and ethos of integrity in the pursuit of its objectives as a political party and a breach of such tenets and ethos as manifest in the instant case is a breach of the 1999 Constitution and the Constitution of the 2nd Defendant.
“The act of presenting a forged certificate is an infraction of the national ethics.
“The 2nd Defendant by nominating and presenting the 3rd Defendant as a Vice Presidential candidate is in breach of its constitution.
“A political party that breached its constitution in selecting a candidate for an election cannot claim to have a lawful candidate for the election”, the AA argued.
The plaintiff insisted that from Masari’s EC9 form it was evident that he “did not attend any higher school above Secondary school. “The 3rd Defendant did not obtain any certificate in any higher school as presented by the 3rd defendant to the 1st defendant.
“The Kaduna State Development Center is not a school and if a school, which is not conceded, is not higher in the structure used in the Form. The 3rd defendant did not attend the Kaduna State Development Center either as claimed in the affidavit of loss of document or police extract.
Amongst the reliefs therefore sought are A declaration that the claim of the 3rd Defendant that he obtained First School Leaving Certificate in 1978 issued by Masari Primary, Katsina State in 1978 as a result of attending Masari Primary, Katsina State between 1972 and 1978 which he entered in INEC Form EC9 submitted to the 1st Defendant is false.
A declaration that the claim of the 3rd defendant that he obtained Grade 2 Certificate from Katsina State Teachers College from 1978 to 1983 arising from attending the said College between 1978 and 1983 which he entered in INEC Form EC9 submitted to the 1st Defendant is false.
A declaration that the claim of the 3rd defendant that he had a certificate in 1985 from a School he entered as higher in his INEC Form EC9 submitted to the 1st Defendant is false.
A declaration that the 1st defendant is by virtue of the declaration in reliefs 1 to 3 or any of them, not qualified to be a Vice Presidential Candidate in the 2023 Presidential General Election to be conducted by the 1st Defendant arising from the provisions of Sections 137(1) and 142(2) of the 1999 Constitution.
A declaration that the 4th defendant is by virtue of Section 142(1) of the 1999 Constitution not duly nominated as a Presidential Candidate by the 2nd defendant in that at the close of nomination for the said position in accordance with the timetable for the 2023 general election into the office of the President the nominee of the 2nd and 4th Defendants, being the 3rd defendant was a person not qualified for election to the office of the Vice President.
No date has been fixed for hearing of the suit.
