Proceedings in the certificate forgery dispute involving former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji, hit a brick wall on Thursday at the Federal High Court in Abuja, as the matter was pushed forward due to procedural hitches.
We gathered that the suit, slated for hearing before Justice Hauwa Yilwa, could not move an inch after counsel sought time to tidy up loose ends. The court consequently shifted the hearing to April 20 to allow parties “put their house in order.”
Chiamaka Anagwu, representing the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN) and four other defendants, made an oral request for adjournment. Nnaji’s counsel, Sebastian Hon, SAN, alongside N.H. Oba, who stood in for the National Universities Commission (NUC), raised no objection. With no dissenting voice, Justice Yilwa granted the request.
The judge further directed that a hearing notice be served on the Minister of Education, who had no legal representative present in court.
At the heart of the legal fireworks are allegations of certificate forgery levelled against Nnaji, claims that have stirred controversy and prompted him to seek judicial redress.
In an ex-parte application, the former minister had asked the court to grant him leave to issue prerogative writs barring the university and its officials from “tampering with” or continuing to “tamper with” his academic records.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1909/2025, Nnaji dragged the Minister of Education, the NUC, UNN and Prof. Ortuanya to court as 1st to 4th respondents. Also joined in the legal crosshairs are the Registrar of UNN, Ujam, and the university’s Senate as 5th to 7th respondents.
He is seeking an order of mandamus compelling the university to release his academic transcript, while urging the Minister of Education and the NUC to wield their supervisory powers to ensure compliance.
Additionally, he prayed the court for an interim injunction restraining UNN and its officials from “tampering” with his academic records pending the final determination of the substantive suit.
However, the 3rd to 7th defendants fired back with a preliminary objection, asking the court to strike out the case for want of jurisdiction and to award substantial costs in favour of the 3rd, 4th and 6th defendants.
In a nine-point argument, they contended that the ex-parte motion was filed outside the three-month window prescribed by law — a move they argued runs foul of Order 34 Rule 4(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act 2004.
“The substantive motion for prerogative orders was wrongly brought by motion on notice instead of an originating motion as required under Order 34Rule 5 (1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
“The application is incompetent, premature, speculative there being no prior request or denial of release of academic records or any evidence of interference with the applicant’s academic records prior to the commencement of this action,” they argued.
The defendants further maintained that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain “matters concerning student academic records, examinations, results and transcripts.”
They insisted the dispute does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction outlined in Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), stressing that internal remedies were not exhausted and that no fundamental rights had been breached.
They also submitted that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed against the 3rd to 7th respondents, particularly Prof. Ortuanya, who, according to them, acted strictly in his official capacity as Vice-Chancellor of UNN.
With legal daggers drawn and procedural knots yet to be untangled, all eyes are now fixed on April 20, when the court is expected to wade into the substance of a case that has already set tongues wagging.f
