Civil rights organization, the Centre for Reform and Public Advocacy (CFRPA), has firmly rejected the administrative relocation of its lawsuit challenging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s educational qualifications from the Federal High Court in Kano to its Abuja headquarters.
​The advocacy group warned that shifting the judicial venue creates a risk of perceived political interference and threatens to compromise public confidence in the judicial system.
The suit, designated FHC/KN/CS/312/2026 (The Incorporated Trustees of Centre for Reform and Public Advocacy v. Bola Ahmed Tinubu & 2 Ors), was originally instituted at the Federal High Court, Kano, on June 26, 2026.
CFRPA’s legal action petitions the court regarding discrepancies in the academic filings presented to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), invoking disqualification provisions under Sections 131 and 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The decision to change the venue originated from an application by President Tinubu’s defense legal team to the Office of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.
​Addressing members of the press in Abuja, Kalu Kalu Agu, Head of the Legal Unit at CFRPA, outlined the organization’s objections to the venue change. Agu argued that granting the transfer request raises serious concerns about administrative impartiality, creating a heightened perception of bias in favor of the sitting executive.
The group emphasized that moving trial proceedings from Kano to the Federal Capital Territory imposes significant logistical and financial burdens on the plaintiff, whose primary witnesses and legal team are based in Kano.
CFRPA characterized the transfer as a strategic attempt at forum shopping to secure a procedural environment more favorable to the President.
​Prior to the transfer order, the court in Kano had slated the matter for mention on September 21, 2026. The CFRPA stated it will explore all available procedural options to contest the transfer directive and ensure the substantive constitutional questions surrounding the President’s credentials receive a transparent hearing.
