The All Progressives Congress has faulted an order of the Federal High Court in Abuja permitting President Bola Tinubu to be served through the party in a suit challenging his eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election, arguing that the order had become unnecessary because the President had already obtained the court processes and filed both a preliminary objection and substantive defence before it was made.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/NBBSPIDEL.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
The party stated its position 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 arises from Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, instituted by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission as first, second and third defendants respectively.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu from participating in the 2027 presidential election over allegations concerning documents he submitted to INEC, including a National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate which they allege was forged.
The plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the NYSC certificate submitted to INEC bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” rather than the President’s known name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and are asking 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 filed by Atiku and the ADC permitting them to serve Tinubu with the originating processes through the APC after they reported difficulty effecting personal service on the President.
The judge ordered that the substituted service be carried out within seven days and adjourned the matter to September 28 for further proceedings.
The APC has now questioned the necessity of that order, saying developments which occurred before September 16 showed that Tinubu was already fully aware of the proceedings and had taken formal steps to defend himself.
In its September 22 letter, the party, through its National Secretary, Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru, said Tinubu’s lawyers obtained Certified True Copies of the originating processes on September 11, filed a preliminary objection on September 14 and followed it with a substantive defence on September 15.
According to the APC, the defence processes had also been served on lawyers representing Atiku and the ADC before the plaintiffs moved their ex parte application for substituted service on September 16.
The party therefore argued that the circumstances leading to Tinubu’s appearance and filing of his defence were not brought to the court’s attention when the application for substituted service was moved.
The APC said it became aware of the September 16 order through media reports and maintained that it 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 relating to service of the originating processes.
According to the party’s account, the APC and INEC had initially been served with the suit while Tinubu, the first defendant, had not been personally served.
After becoming aware of the action 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 those proceedings, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, appearing 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, however, declined the offer, explaining that the plaintiffs wanted to avoid potential technical objections regarding service and preferred to effect personal or court-authorised substituted service.
The inability to serve Tinubu personally consequently stalled further progress in the case, and Justice Ekwo adjourned it 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 to enable him respond to the suit.
According to the party, the lawyers obtained and paid for Certified True Copies of the processes on September 11.
Tinubu’s legal team subsequently filed a preliminary objection on September 14 and a substantive defence, together with a written address, on September 15.
The APC maintained that the plaintiffs’ lawyers acknowledged receipt of those processes before returning to court the following day to seek substituted service.
It consequently argued that the September 16 application had effectively been overtaken by events because the central purpose of service — bringing the proceedings to the knowledge of the defendant and enabling him 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.
According to the party, the President had already retained lawyers of his choice, whose involvement in the case was known to the plaintiffs.
“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 responses made the substituted-service application unnecessary.
It added that both Tinubu and the APC had filed their respective defences and were ready for the substantive proceedings.
The APC’s letter does not itself set aside the September 16 order. Unless varied or discharged by the court, Justice Ekwo’s order permitting substituted service remains a judicial order.
The development instead places before the court the APC’s contention that the circumstances on which the order was obtained should be reconsidered in light of Tinubu’s prior participation in the proceedings.
At the centre of the underlying case are Atiku and the ADC’s allegations concerning Tinubu’s qualification to contest the 2027 presidential election.
In the affidavit supporting the action, Atiku alleged that the President 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 processes opposing the suit.
Reports of the defence indicate that they deny submitting a forged certificate to INEC and are also challenging the competence of the action through preliminary objections. INEC has separately raised objections to the suit, including questions relating to jurisdiction, locus standi and whether the action was commenced within the period permitted for a pre-election matter.
The court has not determined whether the certificate relied upon by the plaintiffs was forged, whether any information supplied to INEC was false, or whether Tinubu is constitutionally disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
The present disagreement concerns principally the procedural question of service and the APC’s contention that the President had already submitted to the proceedings and filed his defence before the substituted-service order was granted.
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.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
