*Says “Constitution Requires School Certificate Level Or Its Equivalent, Not Every Certificate”
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
Dr Monday O. Ubani, SAN, has written that the omission of primary or secondary school certificates from documents submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission does not, without more, establish a violation of the Constitution or the Electoral Act.
The legal practitioner and constitutional lawyer set out his analysis in a written intervention titled “The Constitutional Requirement Of ‘School Certificate Level Or Its Equivalent’: Does The Non-Submission Of Primary Or Secondary School Certificates Disqualify A Presidential Candidate?”
Ubani wrote that the Commission’s recent publication of the personal particulars and credentials of candidates for the 2027 presidential election has reignited public debate over the constitutional educational qualification required for the office.
“The immediate issue that has dominated public discourse, particularly regarding one of the candidates, is whether a presidential aspirant who submits only a university degree, without attaching his Primary School Leaving Certificate or Senior Secondary School Certificate, has thereby violated the Constitution or the Electoral Act,” he wrote.
He added: “This question calls for a careful legal analysis rather than partisan commentary or political sentiment.”
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.”
He observed that the provision is “significant, not merely for what it says, but equally for what it does not say.”
“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,” he wrote. “Rather, what the Constitution requires is educational attainment up to School Certificate level or its equivalent.”
He then turned to the definition of the expression, which he said is contained in Section 318(1) of the Constitution and is “considerably broader than the mere possession of a WAEC or NECO certificate.”
He listed what 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,” he wrote.
Ubani said the interpretation has received judicial approval.
He cited PDP v. INEC & Ors (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) 525, in which he said the Supreme Court emphasised that the expression 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 wrote.
He further cited Action Congress v. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 222, for the proposition that where the Constitution has prescribed qualifications for elective office, “neither the legislature nor any administrative agency can enlarge or diminish those qualifications.”
Ubani argued that a university degree ordinarily answers the constitutional question.
“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 wrote.
He continued: “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.”
He said the contrary position is difficult to sustain. “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.”
He added: “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.”
Ubani acknowledged that the Electoral Act 2026 requires every candidate to submit personal particulars and credentials to the Commission for publication, and that the purpose is to promote transparency and to afford interested persons an opportunity to scrutinise the information and, where appropriate, to bring a pre-election action challenging false information or constitutional disqualification within the prescribed period.
He nonetheless maintained that the statute cannot alter the constitutional threshold. “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.”
He concluded on that point: “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 set out what he described as the proper constitutional questions, in place of the question whether particular certificates were attached.
They are, first, whether the candidate has established that he has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent; second, whether the candidate has supplied any false information in the affidavit or documents submitted to the Commission; third, whether any of the credentials submitted are forged, fabricated or otherwise invalid; and fourth, whether the evidence establishes constitutional disqualification.
“These are the questions contemplated by both the Constitution and the Electoral Act,” he wrote, adding that Nigerian appellate courts have consistently distinguished between the absence of a particular document and proof of constitutional qualification, and that “the two are not necessarily synonymous.”
Ubani was equally clear about the position where falsity is established.
“Where a candidate knowingly supplies false information or submits forged certificates, the Constitution and the Electoral Act provide adequate remedies,” he wrote, citing Modibbo v. Usman & Ors (2019) LPELR-47095(CA), in which he said 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.”
He also addressed the position of the 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 wrote.
“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 drew a distinction between what the Constitution requires and what candour recommends.
“Transparency nevertheless remains an indispensable democratic value,” he wrote. “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 added: “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.”
He continued: “Ultimately, constitutional adjudication must remain anchored on the text of the Constitution rather than public opinion, political rivalry or emotional considerations.”
Summing up, Ubani wrote that Section 131(d) “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. 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.”
He added the qualification: “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 closed: “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.”
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “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.
______________________________________________________________________
