The All Progressives Congress (APC) has contested a Federal High Court order issued in Abuja that allows former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to serve court documents to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu through the party.
In a letter dated September 22, 2026, addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court in Abuja, the APC argued that the order for substituted service granted by Justice Inyang Ekwo on September 16 was unnecessary, as President Tinubu had already engaged lawyers who obtained the court documents and filed responses to the lawsuit.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was brought by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the APC, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The plaintiffs are challenging President Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election, alleging that he submitted a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to INEC.
On September 16, Justice Ekwo granted an ex parte application for substituted service, directing that the court documents be served to Tinubu through the APC within seven days. The case has been adjourned to September 28 for mention.
But in the letter signed by the APC National Secretary, Senator Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru, the party said it became aware of the court order through media reports and had not, as of the date of the letter, been served with the enrolled order.
According to the APC, the President became aware of the suit through media reports shortly after it was filed and instructed a legal team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, to represent him.
The party said, when the matter came up on September 1, one of Tinubu’s lawyers, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, appeared in court and informed the judge that he had instructions to accept service of the originating processes on behalf of the President.
The APC said the plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the proposed mode of service, resulting in an adjournment to September 28.
It further stated that Olanipekun formally wrote the court on September 10, informing it that Tinubu had instructed his legal team to obtain the originating processes and Certified True Copies (CTCs) and file the President’s defence.
The APC said the documents were subsequently obtained on September 11, while Tinubu’s legal team filed a preliminary objection on September 14 and a defence, accompanied by a written address, on September 15.
The party also claimed that the preliminary objection and defence were served on the plaintiffs’ lawyers on September 14 and 15 respectively and therefore argued that the plaintiffs’ application for substituted service, which was heard on September 16, was unnecessary because the President had already entered the proceedings through counsel.
“The APC have noticed that the application for substituted service granted against the President through it was moved on 16th September, 2026 and the attention of the Court was not drawn to the above facts,” the party stated in the letter.
The APC also told the court that it lacked the authority or consent of the President to accept court processes on his behalf, stressing that Tinubu had already engaged lawyers of his choice to represent him.
The party maintained that both it and the President had filed their respective defences and were ready to prosecute the case.
Atiku’s case centres on allegations concerning an NYSC discharge certificate allegedly submitted to INEC, which he alleged bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” and asks the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election on the basis of the alleged certificate forgery.
Tinubu’s lawyers have challenged the competence of the suit, while INEC has also filed processes seeking its dismissal.