Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and constitutional lawyer, Dr. Monday Ubani, has said President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was under no constitutional obligation to submit his primary and secondary school certificates to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), insisting that while the omission may raise questions of transparency, it does not amount to a legal breach.
Ubani made the clarification on Wednesday during an interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, amid renewed controversy over Tinubu’s educational credentials following allegations by former Kogi West Senator, Dino Melaye, that the President failed to include his primary and secondary school certificates among the nomination documents submitted to INEC for the 2027 presidential election.
The publication of candidates’ credentials by INEC reignited public debate over the constitutional educational qualifications for the office of the President, prompting questions about whether a university degree alone satisfies the constitutional requirement or whether candidates must also submit their primary and secondary school certificates.
Responding to the controversy, 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,” he said.
According to the SAN, Section 131 of the 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.
He argued that the provision has already 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 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. He said 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 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 was acting 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.
Ubani also addressed concerns over discrepancies in the names appearing on the academic credentials of 2027 presidential candidate Peter Obi after questions were raised about variations across his WAEC, University of Nigeria and National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) documents.
He 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.”
Speaking 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.”
