Ex-minister Nwajiuba sues Tinubu, Atiku…seeks disqualification as presidential candidates

Former Minister of State for Education, Chukwuemeka Nwajiuba is seeking the disqualification of the Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Bola Ahmed Tinubu in a suit at the Federal High Court Abuja.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/942/2022, filed alongside the Incorporated Trustees of Rights for All International, a non-governmental organisation, is also asking the court to disqualify Atiku Abubakar, candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), over breach of the Electoral Act.

Other defendants joined in the suit are the APC, PDP, the Attorney General of the federation, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The plaintiffs, in the suit filed through their counsel, Okere Nnamdi, alleged that the party primary that produced Tinubu as the APC’s 2023 presidential candidate was marred by corruption and widespread vote-buying, insisting that the majority of the delegates were bought over with dollars.

Nwajiuba, who garnered just one vote at the primary which that held on June 8, attached a video clip that showed where Rotimi Amaechi, former Transportation Minister, complained that delegates at the APC primary sold their votes.

The plaintiffs also queried Tinubu’s source of income and his educational qualifications.

They prayed the court to declare that the third defendant (Tinubu), “who had previously sworn an affidavit in the INEC nomination form declaring that he lost his primary and secondary school documents and benefitted therefrom, cannot in a later affidavit deny and abandon same facts deposed in the previous affidavit and thus falsely contradicting his academic qualifications.

Copies of the affidavits Tinubu signed while running for governor of Lagos State on the platform of the Alliance for Democracy (AD), were deposed by the plaintiffs.

“That the entire circumstances surrounding the two depositions of the 3rd defendant point to the fact that they are false and misleading and cannot be relied upon.

“That the possession of a higher degree does not substitute the minimum requirement of law, where the minimum academic requirement is manifestly absent by an avowed fact.

“That the possession of a higher education qualification such as a first degree or Masters degree is predicated on the minimum educational qualification as provided in the Constitution, the plaintiff averred.