Proceedings in a lawsuit filed by former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Uche Nnaji, against the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and other parties were halted, delaying substantive arguments over his academic records dispute.
The action, brought after allegations of certificate forgery surfaced against the former minister, centres on his request for court orders to safeguard and obtain documents relating to his university credentials.
Defendants in the matter include the Minister of Education; the National Universities Commission; the University of Nigeria, Nsukka; the UNN VC, Prof. Ortuanya; the institution’s Registrar, Prof. Ujam and the university Senate.
The case came up on Thursday before Justice Hauwa Yilwa at the Federal High Court in Abuja but was postponed until April 20 to allow counsel regularise their filings.
The adjournment followed an oral request by Chiamaka Anagwu, representing UNN and four others, seeking time to put processes in order.
Nnaji’s counsel, Sebastian, and N.H. Oba, who appeared for the National Universities Commission, did not oppose the application. The court also directed that a hearing notice be served on the Education Minister, who had no representation in court.
In suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1909/2025, Nnaji sought permission to issue prerogative writs preventing the university and its officials from “tampering with” or continuing to “tamper with” his academic records, among other reliefs.
He equally asked for a writ of mandamus compelling the release of his transcript and urged the Minister of Education and the NUC to deploy supervisory authority to ensure compliance, alongside an interim order restraining interference pending determination of the case.
However, the 3rd to 7th defendants challenged the court’s competence, arguing that “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.”
They further contended that “The application is incompetent, premature, speculative with 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,” while also disputing jurisdiction under Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution and citing the Public Officers Protection Act 2004.
