The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, permission to serve court processes on President Bola Tinubu through the All Progressives Congress (APC) in a suit challenging Tinubu’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 after efforts to personally serve the President were unsuccessful.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was filed by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), listed as the first to third defendants respectively.
Atiku and the ADC are seeking Tinubu’s disqualification from the 2027 presidential election over an allegation that a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate was submitted to INEC.
Moving the application, Omotayo-Ojo told the court that the plaintiffs had been unable to effect personal service of the originating summons and other court processes on Tinubu. He therefore asked the court to permit service through the APC.
Justice Ekwo granted the application. Following an undertaking by Omotayo-Ojo that the plaintiffs would effect service within seven days, the court ordered that the processes be served within that period. The matter was subsequently adjourned until September 28 for mention.
At the previous proceedings on September 1, the plaintiffs had informed the court that Tinubu had yet to be personally served with the originating summons and had sought permission for substituted service.
Meanwhile, Tinubu, the APC and INEC have challenged the competence of the suit and urged the court to dismiss the case.
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 standing to institute the action. They 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 an allegation of forgery constitutes a criminal allegation which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
Olujinmi argued that proving that a certificate was forged requires a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued it. He cited a previous Supreme Court decision in support of the argument.
He also cited the Supreme Court as holding that “in order to prove forgery, or that a document is forged, two documents must be produced viz: the document from which the forgery was (a) made; and (b) the forgery or the forged document.”
The senior lawyer argued that Atiku and the ADC had not produced evidence from the NYSC Directorate disclaiming the issuance of Tinubu’s discharge certificate. He consequently described the suit as hypothetical and academic.
Olujinmi also challenged the suit on the grounds that it was a pre-election matter and argued that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to challenge Tinubu’s candidacy on the platform of the APC.
INEC, in its own preliminary objection filed on September 7 through its counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, also challenged the competence of the case.
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 yet determined the substantive allegations in the case, while the matter is scheduled for mention on September 28.
