APC Challenges Court Order Allowing Tinubu to Be Served Through Substituted Service in 2027 Eligibility Suit
The All Progressives Congress (APC) has challenged an order of the Federal High Court in Abuja permitting President Bola Tinubu to be served through the party in a suit seeking to disqualify him from contesting the 2027 presidential election.
The APC argued that the order had become unnecessary because Tinubu had already obtained the court processes and filed both a preliminary objection and a substantive defence before the order was issued.
The party made its position known in a letter dated September 22, 2026, addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, for the attention of the Registrar of Court 6, presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwo.
The dispute arose from Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu from participating in the 2027 presidential election over allegations relating to documents submitted to INEC, including an NYSC discharge certificate which they allege was forged.
The plaintiffs contend that the certificate submitted to INEC bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” rather than Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the President’s known name. They have asked the court to determine the legal consequences of the alleged discrepancy.
The allegations have not been determined by the court.
On September 16, Justice Ekwo granted an ex parte application by Atiku and the ADC permitting them to serve Tinubu with the originating processes through the APC after they reported difficulties effecting personal service on the President.
The judge ordered that the substituted service be carried out within seven days and adjourned the case to September 28 for further proceedings.
The APC, however, has questioned the necessity of the order, arguing that events before September 16 showed that Tinubu was already aware of the case and had taken formal steps to defend himself.
In its September 22 letter, signed by its National Secretary, Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru, the APC said Tinubu’s lawyers obtained Certified True Copies of the originating processes on September 11.
The party said the lawyers subsequently filed a preliminary objection on September 14, followed by a substantive defence and written address on September 15.
According to the APC, the defence processes had also been served on lawyers representing Atiku and the ADC before the plaintiffs returned to court on September 16 to seek substituted service.
The party therefore argued that the circumstances surrounding Tinubu’s appearance and filing of his defence were not brought to the court’s attention when the application for substituted service was made.
The APC said it became aware of the September 16 order through media reports and had not, as of the date of its letter, been formally served with an enrolled copy of the order.
It nevertheless said it respected the authority of the court but considered it necessary to draw attention to what it described as material facts concerning service of the originating processes.
According to the party, the APC and INEC were initially served with the suit, while Tinubu, who was listed as the first defendant, had not been personally served.
After learning of the case through media reports, Tinubu reportedly retained a legal team led by Wole Olanipekun, SAN, to represent him.
The issue of service had earlier arisen when the case came up on September 1.
At the hearing, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, who appeared for Tinubu, indicated that he was prepared to accept service of the originating processes on behalf of the President.
Counsel for Atiku and the ADC declined the offer, saying the plaintiffs wanted to avoid possible technical objections over service and preferred personal service or court-authorised substituted service.
The inability to personally serve Tinubu subsequently stalled further proceedings, prompting Justice Ekwo to adjourn the case to September 28.
The APC said that following the September 1 proceedings, Olanipekun wrote to the court on September 10, informing it that Tinubu had instructed his legal team to obtain the originating processes so that he could respond to the suit.
The party said the lawyers obtained and paid for Certified True Copies of the processes on September 11.
Tinubu’s legal team then filed a preliminary objection on September 14 and a substantive defence with a written address on September 15.
The APC maintained that the plaintiffs’ lawyers acknowledged receipt of the processes before returning to court the following day to seek substituted service.
It consequently argued that the September 16 application had been overtaken by events because the primary purpose of service — notifying the defendant of the proceedings and enabling him to respond — had already been achieved.
The APC also told the court that it did not have Tinubu’s consent or authority to receive court processes on his behalf.
“The APC does not have the consent or authority of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, to receive any processes in this matter on his behalf,” the party stated in its letter.
The party maintained that Tinubu’s appearance through counsel, collection of the originating documents and filing of his responses rendered the substituted-service application unnecessary.
It added that both Tinubu and the APC had filed their respective defences and were prepared to proceed with the substantive case.
The APC’s letter, however, does not itself set aside the September 16 order. Unless the court varies or discharges it, Justice Ekwo’s order permitting substituted service remains in force.
The latest development instead puts before the court the APC’s contention that the circumstances surrounding the order should be reconsidered in light of Tinubu’s prior participation in the proceedings.
At the centre of the underlying case are allegations by Atiku and the ADC concerning Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
In an affidavit supporting the suit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu supplied false information in documents submitted to INEC and specifically challenged an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle.”
Tinubu and the APC dispute the allegations and have filed court processes opposing the suit.
The defence has denied submitting a forged certificate to INEC and is also challenging the competence of the action through preliminary objections. INEC has separately raised objections, including issues relating to jurisdiction, locus standi and whether the suit was filed within the time allowed for a pre-election matter.
The court has not determined whether the certificate cited by the plaintiffs was forged, whether false information was supplied to INEC, or whether Tinubu is constitutionally disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
For now, the dispute before the court principally concerns the procedure for serving Tinubu and the APC’s argument that the President had already entered the proceedings and filed his defence before the substituted-service order was granted.
The case is scheduled to return before Justice Ekwo on September 28, 2026, when the court is expected to consider the next steps.
