*Says Courts, Not INEC, Determine Forgery Claims
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
Senior Advocate of Nigeria and constitutional lawyer, Dr Monday O. Ubani, has intervened in the debate over the educational credentials submitted by candidates for the 2027 presidential election, arguing that the constitutional requirement is educational attainment up to School Certificate level or its equivalent, not the production of every certificate obtained across a candidate’s academic career.
His analysis follows the publication by the Independent National Electoral Commission of the personal particulars and credentials of presidential candidates, which reignited public argument over whether a candidate who submits only a university degree, without attaching a Primary School Leaving Certificate or Senior Secondary School Certificate, has thereby breached the Constitution or the Electoral Act.
“This question calls for a careful legal analysis rather than partisan commentary or political sentiment,” Ubani stated.
Ubani began with the text of Section 131(d) of the Constitution, which provides that a person shall be qualified for election to the office of President if “he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.”
“This constitutional provision is significant, not merely for what it says, but equally for what it does not say,” he stated.
“The Constitution does not require a university degree as a qualification for the office of President. Equally, it does not expressly require the submission of a Primary School Leaving Certificate or a Senior Secondary School Certificate as a condition precedent for nomination. Rather, what the Constitution requires is educational attainment up to School Certificate level or its equivalent,” Ubani stated.
Ubani drew attention to the definition of “School Certificate or its equivalent” in Section 318(1) of the Constitution, which he described as “considerably broader than the mere possession of a WAEC or NECO certificate.”
The definition includes possession of a Secondary School Certificate or its equivalent; a Grade II Teacher’s Certificate; a City and Guilds Certificate; education up to Secondary School Certificate level; and, in certain circumstances, the ability to read, write, understand and communicate effectively in English coupled with relevant experience or service prescribed by the Constitution.
“The Constitution therefore adopts a substantive rather than a purely documentary approach to educational qualification,” Ubani stated.
Ubani cited PDP v. INEC & Ors (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) 525, in which the Supreme Court emphasised that “School Certificate or its equivalent” must be construed in accordance with the expanded definition in Section 318(1), and recognised that the requirement “is not confined to the production of a WAEC or NECO certificate alone but extends to the broader qualifications expressly recognised by the Constitution.”
“Consequently, courts are enjoined to determine questions of qualification by reference to the Constitution itself rather than by importing additional requirements not contemplated by the Constitution,” he stated.
He further cited Action Congress v. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 222 for the settled principle that “where the Constitution has prescribed qualifications for elective office, neither the legislature nor any administrative agency can enlarge or diminish those qualifications.”
Ubani advanced what he described as the ordinary inference to be drawn from a university degree.
“Ordinarily, admission into a recognised university presupposes prior educational qualifications sufficient for admission. Accordingly, possession of a recognised Bachelor’s Degree ordinarily constitutes strong prima facie evidence that the holder has attained education beyond School Certificate level,” he stated.
“While such a degree may not automatically establish every historical step in the holder’s educational journey, it undoubtedly serves as compelling evidence that the constitutional threshold of education has been surpassed.”
“It is therefore difficult to argue that the Constitution intended a university graduate to be regarded as educationally unqualified merely because copies of earlier certificates were not attached to nomination papers,” Ubani stated.
“Indeed, the Constitution nowhere provides that every educational qualification previously obtained must accompany a candidate’s nomination documents. To read such an obligation into Section 131(d) would amount to importing into the Constitution a requirement that its framers deliberately omitted,” he added.
On the role of the Electoral Act 2026, which requires candidates to submit personal particulars and credentials to INEC for publication, Ubani explained the purpose and the limit.
“The purpose is to promote transparency and afford interested persons an opportunity to scrutinise the information supplied and, where appropriate, institute a pre-election action challenging any false information or constitutional disqualification within the period prescribed by law,” he stated.
“However, the Electoral Act cannot enlarge or diminish the qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that where the Constitution has stipulated qualifications for elective office, neither legislation nor administrative practice can add to or subtract from those constitutional requirements,” Ubani stated.
“The Electoral Act cannot properly be interpreted as imposing a constitutional obligation upon every presidential candidate to submit every educational certificate obtained from primary school upwards.”
Ubani reframed the controversy, setting out what he described as the proper constitutional questions.
“The real legal issues ought not to be whether primary or secondary school certificates were attached to the nomination papers,” he stated.
The proper questions, he said, are: whether the candidate has established that he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent; whether the candidate has supplied any false information in the affidavit or documents submitted to INEC; whether any of the credentials submitted are forged, fabricated or otherwise invalid; and whether the evidence establishes constitutional disqualification.
“These are the questions contemplated by both the Constitution and the Electoral Act,” Ubani stated.
“Nigerian appellate courts have consistently distinguished between the absence of a particular document and proof of constitutional qualification. The two are not necessarily synonymous,” he added.
Ubani was equally clear that the law is not without teeth where genuine falsehood or forgery is established.
“Where a candidate knowingly supplies false information or submits forged certificates, the Constitution and the Electoral Act provide adequate remedies,” he stated, citing Modibbo v. Usman & Ors (2019) LPELR-47095 (CA), in which the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that “where false information relating to qualification is established, the courts possess the constitutional authority to impose the legal consequences prescribed by law.”
Ubani also delineated the role of the electoral commission.
“INEC is essentially an administrative body. Its constitutional responsibility is to receive nomination papers, publish candidates’ particulars and conduct elections in accordance with the Constitution and the Electoral Act,” he stated.
“Questions concerning constitutional qualification, false declaration or forged credentials ultimately fall within the exclusive province of the courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction. Indeed, under the present electoral framework, such disputes are principally determined as pre-election matters,” Ubani stated.
While declining to convert transparency into a legal obligation, Ubani encouraged it as a political virtue.
“Transparency nevertheless remains an indispensable democratic value. Although the Constitution does not compel a candidate to submit every educational certificate obtained throughout his academic career, nothing prevents a candidate from voluntarily producing additional documents where public concerns arise regarding his educational background. Such openness promotes public confidence and strengthens the integrity of the electoral process,” he stated.
“However, political transparency should not be confused with constitutional compulsion. Courts must resist the temptation to impose obligations that the Constitution itself has not prescribed,” Ubani stated.
“Ultimately, constitutional adjudication must remain anchored on the text of the Constitution rather than public opinion, political rivalry or emotional considerations.”
“Section 131(d) of the Constitution requires educational attainment up to School Certificate level or its equivalent, not necessarily the production of every educational certificate acquired during one’s academic journey. Where a candidate presents a recognised university degree, that qualification ordinarily constitutes strong prima facie evidence that he has attained education beyond the constitutional minimum,” Ubani stated.
“Accordingly, the mere omission of primary or secondary school certificates from documents submitted to INEC does not, without more, establish a violation of either the Constitution or the Electoral Act.”
“If, however, competent judicial proceedings establish that any credential submitted is forged, false or incapable of satisfying the constitutional requirement, the law provides adequate remedies, including disqualification where appropriate,” he stated.
“In constitutional adjudication, evidence, not speculation, conjecture or political sentiment, remains the bedrock upon which judicial determination must rest. Ruminate on these before approaching the bench,” Ubani concluded.
The debate arises from INEC’s publication of the particulars of the 19 presidential nominees for the 2027 general elections, pursuant to Section 29(3) of the Electoral Act 2026, which requires publication of Form EC9 within 21 days of receipt for claims and objections.
Parties have until August 22, 2026, to effect withdrawals or replacements, and the final list of nominated candidates for the presidential and National Assembly elections is scheduled for publication on September 12, 2026.
The analysis was authored by Dr Monday O. Ubani, SAN, Legal Practitioner, Constitutional Lawyer and Public Policy Analyst.
Get up to 20% off selected LAWBREED Supreme Court Reports, plus access to My S.C Extra, featuring Supreme Court judgments from 1972 to date. Call/WhatsApp: 08077011741 | 08077011755 | 08077011730 | 08023269613 Email: orders@lawbreed.com | mails@lawbreed.com
LAWBREED — Equipping You For Greater Success!
______________________________________________________________________
“Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
