The All Progressives Congress has challenged a Federal High Court order in Abuja that permitted President Bola Tinubu to be served through the party in a lawsuit questioning his eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election, arguing the order became unnecessary after Tinubu already received and responded to the court processes.
The dispute stems from Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission. The plaintiffs seek to disqualify Tinubu over allegations that documents submitted to INEC, including a National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate, were forged.
Atiku and the ADC allege the NYSC certificate contains the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” instead of the President’s known name, “Bola Ahmed Tinubu.” These allegations remain unverified by the court. On September 16, Justice Inyang Ekwo granted an ex parte application allowing substituted service through the APC after the plaintiffs reported difficulty serving Tinubu personally. The judge ordered the APC to complete service within seven days and set a September 28 hearing.
APC Challenges Court’s Service Order
The APC contends Tinubu had already obtained the court processes and filed both a preliminary objection and substantive defence before the substituted-service order. In a September 22 letter to the court, their National Secretary, Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru, stated Tinubu’s lawyers received certified copies of the processes on September 11, filed a preliminary objection on September 14, and submitted a substantive defence on September 15. The APC claims these documents were served on Atiku and ADC lawyers before their September 16 application.
Read Also: Media outlets sue over White House press ban
The party argues the September 1 proceedings, where Tinubu’s counsel indicated he was prepared to accept service on his behalf, were disregarded when the plaintiffs sought court-authorised substituted service to avoid potential technical objections. After learning of the case through media reports, Tinubu retained Wole Olanipekun, SAN, who obtained the processes on September 11. The APC maintains Tinubu’s appearance through counsel, collection of the originating documents and filing of responses made the substituted-service application unnecessary.
The APC also told the court that it did not have Tinubu’s consent or authority to receive court processes on his behalf, noting the President had already retained lawyers of his choice, whose involvement in the case was known to the plaintiffs. It added that both Tinubu and the APC had filed their respective defences and were ready for the substantive proceedings. However, the September 16 order remains active unless the court modifies it. The matter returns to Justice Ekwo on September 28 for further rulings.
Allegations of Forged NYSC Certificate
The core allegations center on Tinubu’s INEC submissions, with Atiku challenging the authenticity of the NYSC certificate bearing “Tinubu Bola Adekunle.” Tinubu and the APC deny forgery and contest the lawsuit’s validity through preliminary objections. INEC has also raised jurisdictional and procedural objections. The court has yet to rule on the certificate’s validity or Tinubu’s constitutional eligibility. The current focus remains on service procedures and the APC’s argument that Tinubu’s prior legal actions precluded the need for substituted service.
Court to Rule on Service Procedures
The September 28 hearing will address the court’s next steps regarding service procedures and any modifications to the substituted-service order. Justice Ekwo must now determine whether Tinubu’s prior legal participation negates the need for the APC to formally receive court processes on his behalf.
Read Also: Amnesty Lawyer Slams ₦100m Defamation Ruling Against SERAP
Service Dispute and Legal Authority
The APC’s September 22 letter emphasizes it lacks formal consent or authority to receive court processes for Tinubu, noting the President retained independent representation through Wole Olanipekun, SAN, whose involvement was known to both Atiku and the ADC. The party argues that Tinubu’s direct engagement with legal documents and filing of responsive pleadings renders the substituted-service mechanism unnecessary under the circumstances.
The September 16 order arose after the plaintiffs reported difficulty serving Tinubu personally, prompting Justice Ekwo to grant ex parte relief. The APC argues that Tinubu’s lawyers were in contact with the court and filed responsive documents before the substituted-service order was issued, rendering the order superfluous. Their arguments center on whether Tinubu’s known legal representation and prior filings constitute valid service under procedural rules.
The matter is scheduled to return before Justice Ekwo on September 28, 2026, when the court is expected to consider the next steps in the suit.
The APC’s position relies on the sequence of events: Tinubu’s lawyers obtained the processes on September 11, filed a preliminary objection on September 14 and followed it with a substantive defence on September 15, and the plaintiffs then sought substituted service on September 16. The party contends this timeline shows Tinubu’s participation predates the court’s order, making the order unnecessary. The APC also told the court that it did not have Tinubu’s consent or authority to receive court processes on his behalf.
