The All Progressives Congress has questioned the legal strategy adopted by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress in their suit seeking to stop President Bola Tinubu from contesting the 2027 presidential election.
The APC said the decision by Atiku and the ADC to seek an order allowing them to serve Tinubu with court processes through the party was unnecessary because the President’s legal team had already collected the processes and filed his defence.
The party raised the objection in a September 22, 2026 letter to the Federal High Court in Abuja concerning Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, instituted by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The letter, signed by APC National Secretary, Senator Ajibola Basiru, was addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court for the attention of the Registrar of Court 6, presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwo.
The APC said it only became aware of the September 16 order permitting substituted service on Tinubu through media reports, describing the development as curious given the steps already taken by the President’s lawyers.
According to the party, Tinubu’s legal team, led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, had collected certified true copies of the originating processes on September 11 after receiving instructions from the President.
The lawyers subsequently filed a preliminary objection on September 14 and Tinubu’s defence, accompanied by a comprehensive written address, on September 15.
The APC said the documents were served on Atiku’s counsel, who acknowledged receipt.
It therefore questioned why the plaintiffs proceeded to seek substituted service the following day.
‘WHY SEEK SERVICE ORDER AFTER DEFENCE?’
The party argued that the sequence of events showed that Tinubu was already actively participating in the case before the substituted-service order was obtained.
The APC said the plaintiffs’ application on September 16 did not reflect the fact that Tinubu had already obtained the court processes and filed his response.
It also stressed that the party had no authority from Tinubu to accept court processes on his behalf, noting that the President was represented by his own legal team.
The controversy followed an earlier hearing on September 1, when Atiku’s lawyers told the court they had been unable to personally serve Tinubu with the originating processes.
At that sitting, one of Tinubu’s lawyers, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, indicated that he was prepared to accept service on the President’s behalf.
The plaintiffs, however, declined the offer.
The case was subsequently adjourned to September 28.
According to the APC’s latest account, Olanipekun formally communicated with the court on September 10, stating that Tinubu had instructed his lawyers to obtain the originating processes and certified copies and file his defence.
The party said the lawyers complied with the instruction the following day.
ATIKU CHALLENGES TINUBU’S 2027 ELIGIBILITY
Atiku and the ADC’s suit is centred principally on an alleged discrepancy between the name on an NYSC discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission and the President’s official name.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether Tinubu should be allowed to contest the 2027 presidential election in light of the alleged discrepancy.
They are also asking the court to apply relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the Electoral Act.
The allegations remain subject to determination by the court.
The case has already triggered preliminary legal objections from the defendants.
INEC has filed a counter-affidavit challenging the competence of the suit and arguing, among other things, that the plaintiffs lack the legal standing to institute the action.
APC: WE ARE READY FOR THE CASE
The ruling party said it respects the authority of the courts but felt compelled to draw Justice Ekwo’s attention to what it considered an unnecessary use of court processes.
It said both Tinubu and the APC had filed their respective defences and were prepared to prosecute the case.
The party therefore urged the court to take note of the chronology of events surrounding service of the originating processes and the subsequent substituted-service application.
With the matter returning to court on September 28, the battle over Tinubu’s 2027 eligibility is now set to enter another phase, with the parties first facing a series of preliminary legal questions before the substantive claims can be determined.
Don’t Miss Out! Join our WhatsApp Channel for instant news updates. Click here to join
