ABUJA — The Centre for Reform and Public Advocacy (CFRPA) has rejected the transfer of its suit challenging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s academic credentials from the Kano Division of the Federal High Court to Abuja, alleging that the move could undermine public confidence in the judicial process.
The group said the suit, filed in Kano, raises constitutional questions over the academic credentials presented by Tinubu and their implications under Sections 131 and 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
CFRPA filed the case, Suit No. FHC/KN/CS/312/2026, The Incorporated Trustees for Reform and Public Advocacy v. Bola Ahmed Tinubu & 2 Ors, at the Federal High Court in Kano on June 26, 2026.
In a statement issued in Abuja on Wednesday by its Head of Legal Unit, Kalu Kalu Agu, the group said the case was transferred to the Abuja Division following an application by lawyers representing President Tinubu.
CFRPA said it was concerned about what it described as the speed and circumstances surrounding the transfer, arguing that the development could create a perception of bias and affect confidence in the independence of the judiciary.
The organisation identified three main grounds for opposing the transfer.
It alleged that the circumstances surrounding the decision could create a reasonable apprehension of bias in favour of the President and his legal team.
The group also argued that moving the case to Abuja would impose additional financial and logistical burdens on the plaintiff because several of its members and witnesses are based in Kano.
It further questioned whether the transfer could amount to an attempt to secure a more convenient judicial forum for the President.
“The judiciary must not only be impartial; it must also be seen to be impartial,” CFRPA said.
The group urged the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to reconsider the transfer and allow the case to proceed in Kano, where it was originally instituted.
CFRPA also questioned why the case should be moved away from Kano if the President was confident of addressing the allegations raised in the suit.
“If Mr. President has nothing to hide regarding the allegations concerning his academic credentials, why is he afraid of going to the North to defend himself in Kano?” the group asked.
The organisation said a President who represents the entire country should be prepared to respond to constitutional questions before any competent court, regardless of its location.
CFRPA, however, reaffirmed its commitment to pursuing the matter through lawful channels, saying it would continue to seek a determination of the case on its merits.
The group said its position was based on its stated commitment to the rule of law, constitutionalism and accountability in public office.
The allegations contained in the suit and CFRPA’s claims regarding the transfer remain matters for judicial determination. The statement did not indicate the court’s reasons for approving or directing the transfer.
