By Opeyemi Adelakun
The renewed controversy over President Bola Tinubu’s academic, National Youth Service Corps and foreign records has drawn fresh criticism from an All Progressives Congress lawmaker and a group of lawyers and policy analysts.
The criticism followed former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s latest legal challenge to Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election and his reported request to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation for records relating to the President.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, has maintained that Nigerians have a legitimate interest in obtaining information concerning the background and character of a candidate seeking to occupy the country’s highest elective office.
However, the lawmaker representing Agege Federal Constituency, Wale Ahmed, described the renewed focus on Tinubu’s credentials as an unnecessary distraction from issues affecting Nigerians.
Ahmed spoke following reports that Atiku had instituted a fresh action at the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking Tinubu’s disqualification over alleged irregularities involving his NYSC certificate.
The lawmaker stressed that the claims against the President had not been judicially established.
“The case remains pending, and the allegations have not been established by a court,” Ahmed said.
While acknowledging the importance of scrutinising public officials, Ahmed argued that the forthcoming election should be driven by competing policy proposals and the ability of candidates to address Nigeria’s problems.
“Nigerians deserve a campaign of ideas, not an endless recycling of allegations,” he said.
“If anybody believes President Tinubu has failed, let that person tell Nigerians what he will do differently and how he will do it.”
Ahmed also cautioned against conflating questions surrounding Tinubu’s Nigerian academic and NYSC records with separate proceedings in the United States involving historical investigations and civil forfeiture matters linked to funds associated with the President.
“There is a difference between legitimate scrutiny and political obsession. If there is a case before a court, let the court determine it. But an election campaign cannot be reduced to litigating the same allegations repeatedly,” he said.
The lawmaker further argued that national attention should be directed towards the economy, insecurity, infrastructure and unemployment rather than allowing the election season to revolve around disputed credentials.
Ahmed Backs Tinubu’s Second-Term Bid
On the 2027 presidential contest, Ahmed said he respected Atiku’s ambition but argued that the presidency should remain in the South for another four years after Tinubu’s first term.
“I respect the life ambition of Atiku to be President, but for now he should know that the Presidency remains in the South. A southerner must have his eight-year tenure, just as the North did between 2015 and 2023,” he said.
Ahmed said Tinubu was seeking another term and suggested that Atiku could defer his presidential ambition.
“Atiku should know that longevity belongs to God. He could still be President in 2031, only if he retraces his steps to the All Progressives Congress,” he added.
The lawmaker maintained that Tinubu’s administration should be judged principally on its performance and the consequences of its policies rather than allegations that remain subject to legal determination.
He consequently expressed support for continuity, arguing that the administration needed additional time to consolidate its ongoing reforms.
Lawyers Turn Scrutiny Back On Atiku
The Progressive Counsel, meanwhile, challenged Atiku over what it described as unanswered questions concerning his own eligibility.
The group reacted to Atiku’s reported request to the FBI for records relating to Tinubu, which the former Vice-President said should be made available where legally permissible.
In a statement titled “Atiku Must Face the Constitutional Mirror,” and signed by its convener, Maiyegun Oloriegbe, the group accused Atiku of attempting to revive what it called a “non-existent case of drug conviction against President Bola Tinubu.”
It urged Atiku to address what it described as a citizenship question concerning him before concentrating on Tinubu’s eligibility.
“Before Atiku Abubakar challenges President Tinubu’s eligibility for 2027, by digging up a non-existent case of drug conviction against President Tinubu, he must first answer the citizenship question hanging over his own head,” the group said.
The Progressive Counsel referred to Section 131 of the Constitution in arguing that presidential aspirants must satisfy the constitutional requirements for the office.
It maintained that if Tinubu’s academic, foreign and other records could be subjected to scrutiny, similar standards should apply to every presidential contender.
“If Tinubu’s past can be investigated, investigate Atiku’s. If Tinubu’s academic and foreign records can be dissected, dissect Atiku’s. If Tinubu’s eligibility can be litigated, Atiku’s can be litigated with equal force,” the statement said.
The group also cautioned against treating allegations as established facts, arguing that foreign disclosures or political claims should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of constitutional disqualification.
“An American document is not a Nigerian judgment. An allegation is not proof,” it stated.
The lawyers further argued that a Freedom of Information disclosure from the United States would not automatically determine a candidate’s eligibility to contest a Nigerian election.
“A FOIA disclosure is not an automatic disqualification. Political repetition does not create constitutional fact. Nigeria cannot afford a 2027 election that becomes a permanent courthouse campaign,” the group said.
The Progressive Counsel called for greater attention to issues that directly affect voters, including the economy, security, employment, infrastructure and leadership.
“Litigation has its place, but it must not replace political persuasion,” it said.
The group acknowledged Atiku’s right to challenge Tinubu but insisted that no presidential candidate should be exempt from constitutional scrutiny.
“Atiku has every right to challenge Tinubu, but he has no right to demand that only Tinubu faces the constitutional mirror while his own credentials remain untouchable,” it stated.
It added that the courts should determine legal disputes while Nigerians ultimately decide the election through the ballot box.
Leave a Reply