The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted former Vice President Atiku Abubakar permission to serve President Bola Tinubu with court processes through the All Progressives Congress in a suit challenging the President’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the application on Wednesday while ruling on an ex parte motion filed by Atiku’s counsel, O.T. Omotayo-Ojo, seeking an order for substituted service.
Atiku and the African Democratic Congress are seeking the disqualification of Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential election over allegations concerning an allegedly forged National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, lists Tinubu, the APC and INEC as the first to third defendants respectively. The plaintiffs are asking the court to compel INEC to remove the names of Tinubu and the APC from the list of candidates and political parties for the 2027 presidential election.
Moving the application on Wednesday, Omotayo-Ojo told the court that the plaintiffs had been unable to personally serve Tinubu with the originating summons and other court processes.
He therefore asked the court to allow the documents to be served on the President through the APC, the second defendant in the suit.
Justice Ekwo granted the application.
Following an undertaking by Omotayo-Ojo, who held the brief of Silas Onu, that the plaintiffs would effect service within seven days, the judge ordered that the processes be served within that period.
The court subsequently adjourned the suit until September 28 for mention.
The issue of service had previously stalled proceedings on September 1, when Atiku’s counsel informed the court that efforts to personally serve Tinubu with the originating summons had been unsuccessful. The plaintiffs then sought permission for substituted service.
Meanwhile, Tinubu, the APC and INEC have filed separate responses challenging the competence of the suit and asking the court to dismiss it.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, Tinubu and the APC argued that the suit was incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the action.
The President and the APC also denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
Through the APC Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, they further stated that they did not submit Form CF001 to INEC for either election as alleged by the plaintiffs.
The defendants also maintained that the NYSC had never denied issuing a discharge certificate to Tinubu at the end of his service.
In a written address filed alongside their preliminary objection, counsel to Tinubu and the APC, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, argued that the allegation of forgery was a criminal allegation that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
Olujinmi argued that proving forgery required a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued the document.
He cited previous Supreme Court decisions in support of his argument and contended that Atiku and the ADC had produced no evidence from the NYSC Directorate disclaiming the issuance of the discharge certificate.
He consequently described the suit as hypothetical and academic and urged the court to dismiss it.
The lawyer also argued that the suit was a pre-election matter and that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to challenge Tinubu’s candidacy on the platform of the APC.
INEC, through its counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, also filed a preliminary objection on September 7 challenging the competence of the suit.
The electoral commission raised grounds including statute-bar, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and alleged abuse of court process.
INEC further argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.
The commission also challenged the propriety of Reliefs 2 and 3 in the originating summons and urged the court to dismiss the suit.
The court has not determined the substantive allegations in the case.
Author
