The credentials of the presidential candidate of the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr. Peter Obi, appear to be under scrutiny, as three separate suits before the Federal High Court in Abuja seek to compel the release of his original certificates.
The legal actions are seeking orders of mandamus against the West African Examinations Council (WAEC), the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), and the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), compelling them to make available to an applicant copies of certificates issued to the NDC candidate.
The suits, filed by a chieftain of the Labour Party (LP), Mr. Abayomi Arabambi, were predicated on the alleged refusal of the affected federal institutions to release details of Mr. Obi’s academic record in their custody, in line with the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, 2011.
While the suit against WAEC, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2064/2026, and the one against NYSC, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2063/2026, were filed on September 1, the action against UNN, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2144/2026, was filed on September 9.
The plaintiff, through his team of lawyers led by Mr. Anderson Asemota, said he is not asking the court to determine whether the certificates the NDC presidential flag-bearer attached to the Form EC 9 he submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the 2027 presidential election were “genuine or forged,” but is only seeking disclosure of the respondents’ official records “from which the status and particulars of the certificates may be ascertained.”
Arabambi told the court that he had written separately to the institutions demanding information concerning the certificates he believed they had issued to Obi.
He said his requests were not attended to, nor was there any explanation from the respondents as to why the information he sought could not be released.
According to the plaintiff, the information he is seeking is in the public interest and serves “purposes of transparency and accountability concerning persons seeking public office.”
Specifically, he is praying the court to compel WAEC, through an order of mandamus, to release to him a Certified True Copy (CTC) of WAEC Certificate No. SC042560, issued to Obi Gregory Onwubuase in June 1978.
The plaintiff is also praying the court to compel UNN to release to him the university’s certificate register, academic records, graduation records, Senate/degree-award records, and other existing official records relevant to Certificate No. D000198, insofar as such records exist.
“The applicant is not asking this court, in this proceeding, to pronounce that Certificate No. D000198 is genuine or forged.
“Rather, to ascertain what the university’s own official records disclose concerning the certificate,” he added.
Likewise, he urged the court to order NYSC to grant him access to official records relating to “NYSC Certificate No. 203495, stated to have been issued to Obi, Gregory Peter-Onwubuase (Mr.), on May 1, 1986,”
as well as the release of “any official record, certificate, document, or other material upon which the said Certificate No. 203495 was predicated, based, or issued, insofar as the same is in the custody, possession, or control of the respondents.”
“The request further sought information concerning the manner in which the name ‘Peter-Onwubuase’ appears in the relevant NYSC records.”
Court processes revealed that while WAEC, on August 11, declined the plaintiff’s request, citing the provisions of Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(2)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, both UNN and NYSC neither granted the request nor gave any reason for refusing the application.
- WhatsApp to stop working on these 5 iPhones from November 2026 [Full list]
- Romania Introduces Black Card In Youth Football
- IGP not opposed to citizens recording police officers – Media aide
Consequently, the plaintiff is asking the court to declare that “the refusal of the respondents to furnish the applicant with the requested information, as communicated in its letter dated 11th August 2026, and in reliance on Section 14(1)(a) and Section 14(2)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, is erroneous.”
He wants the court to declare that the request he made pursuant to the provisions of the FOI Act, 2011, was valid and ought to have been granted by the affected institutions.
He applied for: “An order of mandamus compelling the respondents to communicate to the applicant the result of a verification of the particulars of Certificate No. D000198 from the university’s existing official records, including whether the said certificate and/or its particulars appear in those records.”
“An order of mandamus compelling the respondents to communicate to the applicant the result of their verification of Certificate No. 203495 as disclosed by their official records.”
“An order directing the respondents, if they contend that any part of the requested information is exempt from disclosure, to identify the particular information withheld and the precise statutory provision relied upon for the refusal, and to disclose all severable non-exempt portions.”
Also, “an order pursuant to Section 25 of the Freedom of Information Act directing disclosure of the requested information where this Honourable Court finds that the respondents are not authorised to deny access, have no reasonable grounds for denying access, or that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interest served by withholding it.”
Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the suits.
