The All Progressives Congress has challenged an order allowing court documents in a suit filed by Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress to be served on President Bola Tinubu through the party’s national secretariat.
In a letter dated September 22, 2026, the APC told the Federal High Court in Abuja that the substituted-service order was unnecessary because Tinubu’s lawyers had already filed and served his defence before the order was granted.
The letter, signed by APC National Secretary Ajibola Basiru and addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar, concerns Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, before Justice Inyang Ekwo.
The party said it only became aware of the September 16 order through media reports and added that the plaintiffs had not served it with an enrolled copy of the order.
Atiku and the ADC are challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election. One of the central issues raised in the case concerns an alleged discrepancy between the name on a National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to INEC and the President’s official name.
The APC said the plaintiffs served the party and INEC but did not serve Tinubu personally. According to Basiru, Tinubu subsequently engaged a legal team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, after learning about the case through media reports.
The party said that when the case came up on September 1, Tinubu’s lawyer, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, informed the court that he was prepared to accept service on the President’s behalf. However, the plaintiffs opposed the arrangement, leading the court to adjourn the matter to September 28.
The APC further stated that Olanipekun wrote the court on September 10, informing it that Tinubu had instructed his lawyers to collect the originating processes, obtain certified copies and immediately prepare his defence.
According to the party, the lawyers obtained the certified copies on September 11, filed a preliminary objection on September 14 and submitted Tinubu’s defence, alongside a comprehensive written address, on September 15.
The APC said both documents were served on the plaintiffs’ lawyers on September 14 and 15, respectively, with the recipients acknowledging the service.
The party therefore questioned why the plaintiffs proceeded with their application for substituted service on September 16 without drawing the court’s attention to the fact that Tinubu’s defence had already been filed and served.
The APC also stated that it did not have Tinubu’s consent or authority to accept court documents on his behalf, noting that the President was already represented by his own legal team.
The party consequently argued that the substituted-service application was unnecessary and maintained that both it and Tinubu had filed their respective defences and were prepared to proceed with the case.
The suit was filed in August by Atiku and the ADC, asking the court to determine whether Tinubu should be disqualified from the 2027 election over the alleged name discrepancy. The plaintiffs also asked the court to consider relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the Electoral Act.
INEC has filed a counter-affidavit opposing the suit, describing it as an abuse of court process and arguing that the plaintiffs lack the legal standing to bring the action.
The case remains before Justice Ekwo, with the APC’s latest letter now before the court registry ahead of further proceedings.
Source: PUNCH
