The Federal High Court in Abuja has authorised former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress to serve court documents on President Bola Tinubu through the All Progressives Congress a suit seeking to challenge his eligibility for the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the application on Wednesday after hearing an ex parte motion filed by Atiku’s lawyer, O.T. Omotayo-Ojo.
The motion was brought after attempts to personally serve Tinubu with the originating summons and other processes in the case were unsuccessful. The plaintiffs subsequently asked the court to permit substituted service by delivering the documents to the APC, the second defendant in the suit.
Justice Ekwo granted the request and directed that service be completed within seven days, following an undertaking by Omotayo-Ojo, who appeared for counsel Silas Onu.
The case, identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, lists Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the first, second and third defendants respectively.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to order INEC to exclude Tinubu and the APC from its list of presidential candidates and political parties for the 2027 election.
Their case centres on an allegation concerning the authenticity of a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate said to have been submitted to INEC. The allegation remains contested by the defendants.
The court adjourned the matter until September 28 for mention.
At an earlier hearing on September 1, the plaintiffs told the court that they had been unable to personally serve Tinubu with the originating summons and requested permission to use substituted service.
Tinubu, APC Challenge Suit
Tinubu and the APC have opposed the action, asking the court to dismiss it on several legal grounds.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, the President and the APC described the suit as incompetent and argued that Atiku and the ADC lacked the legal standing to bring the action.
They also denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC in connection with either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
The defendants further denied submitting Form CF001 to INEC for either election as alleged by the plaintiffs.
According to their response, the NYSC has not disowned the discharge certificate attributed to Tinubu. They therefore maintained that there had been no constitutional violation or injustice arising from the submission of the President’s personal information to INEC.
APC Cites Legal Standard for Forgery Claims
In a written address supporting the preliminary objection, counsel to Tinubu and the APC, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, argued that the allegation of forgery amounts to a criminal allegation and must consequently meet the standard of proof required under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
Olujinmi maintained that a claim that a certificate is forged ordinarily requires evidence from the institution purported to have issued the document.
Relying on previous Supreme Court decisions, he argued that a forgery allegation cannot be established merely by questioning the authenticity of a document without evidence from the issuing body disclaiming it.
He also argued that the plaintiffs had not produced evidence from the NYSC Directorate denying that it issued the discharge certificate attributed to Tinubu.
On that basis, the lawyer characterised the action as hypothetical and lacking a genuine factual foundation.
The APC and Tinubu also argued that the case was a pre-election matter and that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to challenge Tinubu’s candidacy on the APC platform.
They consequently urged the court to uphold their preliminary objection and strike out the suit.
INEC Raises Separate Objections
INEC has also challenged the case.
In a preliminary objection filed on September 7 through its counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, the electoral commission argued that the suit was affected by several legal defects, including limitation, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and alleged abuse of court process.
INEC further contended that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the written deposition requirement contained in Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.
The commission also questioned the validity of two of the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in their originating summons.
INEC consequently asked the court to dismiss the action.
For now, the Federal High Court has only ruled on the method of serving the President with the court processes. The substantive claims and the objections raised by Tinubu, the APC and INEC remain before the court for determination.
