A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and constitutional lawyer, Dr Monday Ubani, has said President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not under constitutional obligation to submit his primary and secondary school certificates to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Admitting that the controversy over the omission was not out of place, Ubani submitted during a during a current affairs radio programme yesterday that it does not amount to a legal breach.
He also spoke on the controversy over discrepancies in the names appearing on the academic credentials of National Democratic Congress(NDC) presidential candidate Peter Obi. The discrepancies are Obi’s West African Examination Certificate as well as University of Nigeria and National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) documents.
The publication of candidates’ credentials by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) reignited public debate over the educational qualifications for the office of the President.
It prompted questions about whether a university degree alone satisfies the constitutional requirement or whether candidates must also submit their primary and secondary school certificates.
But Ubani said the issue should be viewed strictly from the standpoint of constitutional law rather than public sentiment.
‘It is about the law, not about maybe sentiment or bias, which I see flying about,’ the senior Lawyer said.
According to him, Section 131 of the 1999 Constitution only requires a presidential candidate to show evidence of having been educated up to school certificate level or its equivalent and does not expressly compel the production of primary or secondary school certificates.
‘The Constitution says that whosoever will run for the office of the president must possess, show that he has attained the level up to school certificate level,’ he clarified.
Ubani argued that the provision had been interpreted by the courts and that the law does not require candidates to physically produce school certificates. ‘There’s no legal compulsion that he must disclose his certificate, or he must show it. I’ll say that it’s only a moral issue and it has nothing to do with legal compulsion,’ Ubani said.
He maintained that while the omission of primary and secondary school certificates may fuel public debate over transparency and accountability, it does not amount to a constitutional violation.
The SAN pointed out that existing judicial interpretation of the Constitution makes a clear distinction between what is legally required and what may be considered morally desirable of a candidate seeking the country’s highest office.
‘There’s no constitutional compulsion to show a certificate, and there is a judicial pronouncement to that effect that the constitution does not require a certificate of production. It’s just for you to show that you have been educated up to that level,’ he added.
Ubani further explained that where a candidate submits a recognised university degree, the law presumes that such a person must have passed through the lower levels of education unless evidence is produced to prove otherwise.
‘If somebody has a degree, the presumption is that he must have passed through primary school, secondary school, and university… So it is for you now to rebut it,’ he said.
While defending the constitutional position, the senior lawyer admitted that the omission of lower educational qualifications raises legitimate questions of transparency.
Ubani noted that although the omission does not invalidate a nomination, candidates seeking public office should strive for openness.
‘I agree that ordinarily, whoever is submitting his credentials should have shown evidence of his primary school certificate and should have also shown evidence of his secondary school certificate. These are moral issues. These are issues of transparency.’
On INEC’s position that it merely publishes candidates’ documents for public scrutiny without verifying their authenticity, Ubani said the electoral body acted within the law.
‘There is no provision in the Act that gives INEC the supervisory role of authenticating and qualifying or disqualifying a candidate. The law now has provided a remedy for anyone who feels that whatever information that a candidate has given to INEC is false,’ he stated.
He maintained that INEC’s responsibility ends with making the documents public, leaving aggrieved persons to seek judicial redress where necessary.
On previous litigation over alleged certificate forgery involving Tinubu after the 2023 presidential election, Ubani said the Supreme Court did not determine the allegation on its merits.
‘I don’t think there was any judgement on merit at that time,’ he said.
According to him, procedural shortcomings prevented the apex court from making a substantive pronouncement on the allegation.
He added that educational qualification disputes are primarily pre-election matters and must be brought within the time prescribed by law after INEC publishes candidates’ particulars.
‘If you are challenging the certificate issue, this is the right time for you to do it within 14 days after the publication. If you fail to do it now under the new Act, I don’t think you can bring it up as a post-qualification issue.’
On Obi’s documents, Ubani said inconsistencies in names are not necessarily evidence of wrongdoing but must be properly documented.
‘It’s an issue now. Peter Obi has to give a reason why the change and all that. It’s an issue. There must be a public document to that effect.’