A public affairs commentator, Great Imo Jonathan, has commended the legal opinion recently expressed by senior lawyer on the long-running controversy surrounding allegations about President ‘s academic credentials.
In a statement titled “In Appreciation of Dr. Monday Ubani’s Intervention on President Tinubu’s Fake Certificate Saga,” Jonathan described Ubani’s analysis as an enlightening explanation of the constitutional issues involved. He noted that, although he is not a lawyer, he found the legal opinion helpful in understanding the distinction between educational qualification requirements and allegations of false declaration.
Jonathan also used the opportunity to congratulate Ubani on his birthday, praying for God’s continued blessings and guidance upon the Senior Advocate.
According to Jonathan, Ubani’s interpretation of Sections 131(d) and 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution suggests that the constitutional requirement for presidential qualification is that a candidate be educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent. He said Ubani explained that the Constitution broadly defines “School Certificate or its equivalent” to include higher educational qualifications such as university degrees, as well as other recognized qualifications.
Jonathan further stated that Ubani relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in PDP v. INEC (2014) to argue that the issue is a substantive assessment of educational attainment rather than whether every primary or secondary school certificate was attached to nomination documents.
He said the legal opinion distinguishes between the non-submission of earlier educational certificates and allegations of submitting false information or forged documents, arguing that the latter, if established by a competent court, could have constitutional consequences.
Jonathan also referenced provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act, as well as judicial authorities, which he said deal with false declarations and forgery in electoral matters. He argued that the critical legal questions relate to whether any false information or forged documents were submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), stressing that such allegations would ultimately require judicial determination based on evidence.
He maintained that INEC’s role is administrative and that issues concerning a candidate’s qualification based on alleged false declarations fall within the jurisdiction of the courts in pre-election proceedings.
Jonathan concluded that, in his understanding of Ubani’s opinion, the non-submission of primary or secondary school certificates alone does not automatically disqualify a presidential candidate. However, he argued that any proven case of forgery or false declaration before a court could constitute grounds for disqualification under the Constitution.
The allegations concerning President Tinubu’s academic records and previous electoral filings have remained matters of public debate and litigation. The President has consistently maintained that he is qualified to hold office, while courts have previously ruled on various election-related challenges brought against him.
