The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday granted former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s application to serve court documents on President Bola Tinubu through the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the application while ruling on an ex-parte motion filed by Atiku’s counsel, O.T. Omotayo-Ojo, seeking an order for substituted service on the President.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and the party had filed the suit seeking to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
The plaintiffs alleged that a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate bearing Tinubu’s name and submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was forged.
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 order INEC to remove Tinubu’s and the APC’s names from the list of candidates and political parties for the 2027 presidential election.
Moving the application, Omotayo-Ojo told the court that the plaintiffs had been unable to personally serve the originating summons on Tinubu.
He therefore asked the court to permit service of the processes through the APC, the second defendant in the suit.
Justice Ekwo granted the application after hearing the motion.
Following an indication by Omotayo-Ojo, who held the brief of Silas Onu, that the plaintiffs would effect service within seven days, the judge directed that the documents be served within the period.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter until September 28 for mention.
At the previous hearing on September 1, Onu had informed the court that efforts to personally serve Tinubu with the originating summons had been unsuccessful.
He had then sought an order permitting substituted service.
Meanwhile, Tinubu, the APC and INEC have filed responses challenging the competence of the suit and urging the court to dismiss it.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, Tinubu and the APC argued that the plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to institute the action and asked the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
The defendants denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC in connection with either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
Through APC Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, they also argued that they did not submit Form CF001 to INEC for either election as alleged by the plaintiffs.
They further stated that the NYSC had never denied issuing a discharge certificate to Tinubu at the end of his service.
The defendants maintained that no constitutional provision had been breached by the submission of the President’s personal particulars to INEC and that the plaintiffs had suffered no injustice as a result.
In a written address filed alongside the preliminary objection, Tinubu and the APC’s counsel, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, raised several objections to the suit.
Olujinmi argued that although the plaintiffs’ allegation of forgery amounted to a criminal allegation, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
READ ALSO: 2027: Shugaba-Abdullahi Emerges As Nasarawa NDC Governorship Candidate
He further argued that established legal principles require evidence from the institution alleged to have issued a certificate to establish that the document was not issued by it.
According to him, Atiku and the ADC had not produced any evidence from the NYSC disclaiming the issuance of the discharge certificate attributed to Tinubu.
He therefore described the suit as hypothetical and academic, arguing that it lacked a factual basis.
Olujinmi also contended that the suit was incompetent as a pre-election matter and that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to challenge Tinubu’s candidacy on the grounds presented.
He urged the court to uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the case.
INEC, in its own preliminary objection filed on September 7 through its counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, also challenged the competence of the suit.
The commission cited statute-bar, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and alleged abuse of court process as grounds for seeking its dismissal.
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 electoral commission also challenged the propriety of the second and third reliefs sought by Atiku and the ADC in their originating summons, urging the court to dismiss the suit.
