…as Court adjourns hearing till Sept 28
The former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s suit filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja challenging the eligibility of President Bola Tinubu to participate in the 2027 presidential election has suffered a setback on Tuesday after Atiku was unable to serve the court process on Tinubu as required by law.
When the matter was called, counsel to the former vice president, Joseph Onu Silas, told the trial judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo, that he had been unable to reach President Tinubu for personal delivery of the originating summons in accordance with the law.
He asked the court to order substituted service to enable the suit to be formally served on President Tinubu.
However, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, who appeared for President Tinubu, told the Court that he was willing to accept the Court process on behalf of his client. He urged Justice Ekwo to direct Atiku’s lawyer to make the process available to him in open court for delivery to Tinubu.
Atiku’s lawyer, however, insisted that Popoola provide a written undertaking confirming that he had Tinubu’s mandate to represent him before the court process could be handed over to him.
ALSO READ: You’re under spell of marabouts, Tinubu blasts Atiku
In an attempt to resolve the issue, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter to enable Atiku put his house in order.
An attempt by Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, to persuade the Court to order service of the process on Tinubu through his lawyer so that proceedings could continue was unsuccessful.
Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned further mention of the case until September 28.
It would be recalled that Atiku dragged Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC to Court, seeking the disqualification of President Tinubu from contesting the 2027 presidential election on various grounds relating to eligibility.
Atiku Abubakar, who is the Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), had deposed to an affidavit in support of his suit challenging the qualification of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to contest the 2027 presidential election.
In the suit, which lists Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC as defendants, Atiku wants the Court to invoke Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, to determine whether Tinubu can participate in the election.
Atiku claimed that Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution provides that a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC. He therefore asked the Court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from the 2027 presidential election over the NYSC certificate presented to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
In his affidavit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted to INEC an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which, according to him, differs from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The affidavit further alleged that the same NYSC certificate was submitted in connection with the 2027 presidential election and claimed that the document was not a certificate obtained by Tinubu.
Atiku also placed INEC on notice to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections, adding that, “If the certificate belongs to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, let that be established before the court. If ‘Tinubu Bola Adekunle’ and ‘Bola Ahmed Tinubu’ are one and the same person for the purpose of that certificate, let the evidence establish it. These are questions that deserve answers, not political insults or presidential silence”.
Atiku and the ADC are also challenging provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which restrict who may challenge the qualification of a candidate at the pre-election stage and remove qualification as a ground for questioning an election, as envisaged by Section 139(a)(i) of the Constitution. The provision empowers the National Assembly to make laws allowing the questioning of whether a person elected to the office of President is qualified.
According to Atiku and ADC, the legislation cannot be used to prevent enforcement of an express constitutional provision, arguing that where an Act of the National Assembly conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail.
The originating summons asks the Federal High Court to determine whether the statutory restrictions complained of can prevent the plaintiffs from invoking Section 137(1)(j) and ultimately whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the plaintiffs’ case is established.
The substantive relief sought is an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the election on the grounds pleaded by the plaintiffs.
Counsel to Atiku and ADC are Edwin Inegedu, SAN, and Joseph Onu Silas.