Court adjourns Uche Nnaji’s certificate forgery suit till February 2027
The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed the legal case brought by former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology Uche Nnaji against the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and other defendants until February 15, 2027.
Justice Hauwa Yilwa set the new date Wednesday after the Minister of Education’s counsel was absent from the hearing. Nnaji filed the lawsuit amid allegations of certificate forgery against him.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, Akintola Makinde, SAN, representing Nnaji, informed the court of the first respondent’s non-appearance. Meanwhile, Chris Uche, SAN, who represents the third to seventh respondents, noted that the court had partially granted a previous motion to regularize their legal processes on January 8, although one aspect of the application remained unresolved.
After consideration from both parties, the judge agreed to the adjournment until February 15, 2027, for further hearings.
According to the News Agency of Nigeria, Nnaji had previously sought an ex-parte application to prevent UNN and its officials from altering his academic records. He also requested a mandamus order compelling the university to release his academic transcript. Nnaji asked the Minister of Education and the National Universities Commission (NUC) to intervene and ensure the documents were made available.
In the case identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/1909/2025, Nnaji named several respondents, including the Minister of Education, NUC, UNN Vice-Chancellor Professor Ortuanya, and the university registrar, Ujam, along with the institution’s Senate.
In response, the third to seventh respondents submitted a preliminary objection, requesting the court to dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction. They argued that Nnaji’s application was submitted beyond the three-month limit specified in the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules, as well as violating the Public Officers Protection Act of 2004.
The respondents further asserted that Nnaji incorrectly initiated his application with a motion on notice instead of an originating motion, as required by the court. They claimed the lawsuit was based on future speculation, challenging the assertion that the university had denied access to his academic records.
Additionally, they contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over matters concerning students’ academic records and that all internal remedies had not been exhausted, asserting that no fundamental rights violations or reasonable causes of action were evident against them.
