NEWS
Group Blasts Chief Judge, Alleges Bias in Transfer of Case Challenging Tinubu’s Academic Credentials
Group Blasts Chief Judge, Alleges Bias in Transfer of Case Challenging Tinubu’s Academic Credentials
-
The Centre for Reform and Public Advocacy has rejected the relocation of its suit challenging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s academic credentials from Kano to Abuja, alleging that the decision creates an appearance of judicial bias.
-
CFRPA challenged Tinubu to defend himself against the allegations in Kano if he has nothing to hide, asking why the President would allegedly be uncomfortable answering the constitutional questions raised against him in the North.
-
The organisation accused the President’s legal team of seeking a more convenient judicial forum, arguing that moving the case could impose additional costs and hardship on witnesses and members based in Kano and other northern locations.
-
CFRPA demanded the immediate reversal of the transfer, insisting that the case should remain in Kano and warning that any perception of preferential treatment could further erode public confidence in the judiciary.
August 19, () — The Centre for Reform and Public Advocacy (CFRPA) has condemned the transfer of a suit challenging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s academic credentials from the Federal High Court in Kano to the Abuja Division, alleging that the decision creates an impression of bias and amounts to an attempt to frustrate the case.
The group, which instituted the suit, also questioned why the President would allegedly be uncomfortable defending the matter in Kano, asking: “If Mr President has nothing to hide regarding the allegations of forgery of academic credentials, why is he afraid of going to the North to stand trial and defend himself in Kano?”
The controversy follows the transfer of Suit No. FHC/KN/CS/312/2026, filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the Centre for Reform and Public Advocacy against Tinubu and two other defendants.
The suit, filed on June 26, 2026, at the Federal High Court, Kano Judicial Division, challenges issues surrounding credentials allegedly presented by Tinubu in connection with his qualification for the 2023 presidential election.
CFRPA said the suit raises serious constitutional questions under Sections 131 and 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, particularly regarding the qualifications of a presidential candidate and the consequences of allegedly presenting false or forged documents.
However, following an application by lawyers representing the President, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court transferred the case from Kano to Abuja.
In a statement signed by its Head of Legal Unit, Kalu Kalu Agu, Esq., CFRPA said it strongly rejected the transfer, describing the circumstances surrounding the decision as troubling.
The organisation alleged that the transfer application was initiated by lawyers representing Tinubu and that the speed and manner in which it was granted had created what it described as a “reasonable apprehension of bias” in favour of the President and his legal team.
CFRPA argued that the judiciary must not only be independent and impartial but must also be seen to be impartial by litigants and the public.
“The speed and manner of granting the transfer gives the impression of preferential treatment and creates a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the office of the Chief Judge in favour of Mr Tinubu and his legal team,” the group alleged.
It further argued that Kano was not chosen arbitrarily as the venue of the suit, stressing that many of its members and potential witnesses reside in the North.
According to CFRPA, transferring the case to Abuja would impose additional financial and logistical burdens on the plaintiff, its members and witnesses, potentially making it more difficult to prosecute the matter.
The group described the relocation as a possible denial of access to justice and alleged that the transfer was designed to frustrate the case. It also accused the President’s lawyers of attempting to engage in “forum shopping” by moving the case from Kano to Abuja.
The organisation said the transfer “appears to be a deliberate attempt to shop for a more convenient forum” and avoid what it believes could be greater public scrutiny in Kano.
‘He’s the Only Nigerian Without Classmates’ — Dino Melaye Reopens Tinubu’s Academic Record Controversy in Viral Video
US Lobbying Firm Escalates Campaign Against Tinubu, Pushes For Criminal Charges
Fresh Pressure On Trump: US Lobbying Firm Revives Campaign Against Tinubu Ahead Of UNGA Meeting
Group Demands Reversal, Challenges Tinubu
CFRPA consequently demanded that the Chief Judge immediately reverse the transfer order and allow the case to proceed in Kano, where it was originally instituted.
The group warned that the continued transfer of politically sensitive cases involving public office holders could undermine confidence in the judiciary if the public begins to believe that influential litigants can determine where their cases are heard.
“The judiciary must not only be impartial, but it must also be seen to be impartial,” CFRPA said, warning that the circumstances surrounding the transfer could “erode public confidence in the independence of the Federal High Court.”
The organisation also directly challenged Tinubu to appear in Kano and defend himself against the allegations if he has nothing to hide.
“If Mr President has nothing to hide regarding the allegations of forgery of academic credentials, why is he afraid of going to the North to stand trial and defend himself in Kano?” CFRPA asked.
It added that a President who claims to represent all Nigerians should be prepared to answer constitutional questions in any part of the country.
“A leader who claims to represent all Nigerians should not be afraid to answer constitutional questions in any part of Nigeria,” the organisation said.
CFRPA maintained that its position was based on its stated commitment to the rule of law, constitutionalism and accountability in public office.
It vowed to pursue every lawful avenue available to challenge what it described as any attempt to “pervert the course of justice.”
