Atiku Abubakar, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, has been permitted by a federal high court in Abuja to serve President Bola Tinubu with court documents in his lawsuit contesting the president’s eligibility for the 2027 elections.
After considering an ex parte motion submitted by Atiku’s attorney, Olanrewaju Omotayo-Ojo, the presiding judge, Inyang Ekwo, approved the request for substituted service on Wednesday.
Within seven days, the judgment mandated that Tinubu receive the proceedings via the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The plaintiffs’ incapacity to physically serve Tinubu with the originating process in the lawsuit designated FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026 prompted the order.
Atiku and the ADC are the plaintiffs in the suit, while Tinubu, APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are the first to third defendants, respectively.
At the hearing, Omotayo-Ojo, who held the brief of Silas Onu, told the court that the application for substituted service was filed because efforts to serve Tinubu personally had been unsuccessful.
Following the lawyer’s indication that the plaintiffs could effect service within seven days, Ekwo ordered that the processes be served within the period.
The judge adjourned the case until September 28 for mention.
Atiku and the ADC are challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election over an NYSC discharge certificate which they allege was forged.
In the suit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted a certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” to INEC, thereby presenting false information to the electoral body.
The plaintiffs are relying on section 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which deals with disqualification arising from the presentation of a forged certificate to INEC.
They are asking the court to declare that Tinubu presented a forged certificate and disqualify him and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
Tinubu and APC have denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
In their joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, the president and APC asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that it is incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute it.
They also denied submitting Form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or 2027 election as alleged by Atiku and ADC.
INEC has separately challenged the competence of the suit, citing, among other grounds, statute bar, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and abuse of court process.
CONFUSION OVER TINUBU’S LEGAL REPRESENTATION
Two senior advocates of Nigeria — Akin Olujinmi and Wole Olanipekun — have separately filed processes indicating that they are representing Tinubu in the suit.
Olujinmi filed a counter-affidavit and written address on behalf of Tinubu and APC, challenging the competence of the case and Atiku’s legal standing to challenge Tinubu’s candidacy.
He argued that Atiku’s allegation of forgery, being a criminal allegation, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under the Evidence Act.
Olujinmi also argued that Atiku and ADC had not produced evidence from the NYSC disclaiming the issuance of the discharge certificate to Tinubu.
He urged the court to uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.
Separately, Olanipekun filed a preliminary objection and counter-affidavit on behalf of Tinubu, also seeking the dismissal of the case.
In a letter dated September 10 and addressed to the deputy chief registrar of the court, Olanipekun said he had been briefed by Tinubu to lead a team of lawyers to represent and defend his interests in the matter.
Olanipekun said Tinubu had not been served with the originating processes and that the president instructed his legal team to appear when the matter came up on September 1.
He said Omosanya Popoola, a senior advocate, appeared in court on that date on Tinubu’s behalf and sought to collect copies of the processes filed by the plaintiffs.
Olanipekun subsequently asked the court to provide his team with either the service copy or a certified true copy of the originating processes to enable Tinubu to respond to the suit.
The plaintiffs have also applied to amend the suit, including a request to correct the description of the INEC form allegedly attached to the certificate from Form CF001 to Form EC9.
