The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted former Vice President and African Democratic Congress presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, permission to serve President Bola Tinubu with court processes through his political party, the All Progressives Congress.
Justice Inyang Edem Ekwo granted the application on Wednesday while ruling on an ex-parte application filed by Atiku and the ADC in a suit seeking to disqualify Tinubu from contesting the January 16, 2027 presidential election.
The order followed an earlier complaint by Atiku’s counsel, Silas Onu, that the plaintiffs had been unable to personally serve the originating processes on the President.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, Atiku’s lawyer, Omotayo Ojo, who appeared for Onu, told the court that the plaintiffs would effect service within seven days.
Justice Ekwo consequently ordered that the court documents be served within seven days and adjourned the matter until September 28 for mention.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, has Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission as defendants.
Atiku and the ADC are challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to participate in the 2027 presidential election, including allegations concerning documents and certificates allegedly submitted to INEC.
However, Tinubu and the APC have asked the court to dismiss the case, describing it as incompetent and arguing that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute the action.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, the President and the APC denied submitting forged certificates or Form CF001 to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
They also disputed the claim concerning Tinubu’s National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate, saying the NYSC had never denied issuing the certificate to the President after his service year.
Their lawyer, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, argued that allegations of forgery constitute a criminal allegation which must be established beyond reasonable doubt under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
Olujinmi further argued that where the authenticity of a certificate is challenged, evidence from the institution purported to have issued it would be necessary to establish that the document was not genuinely issued.
He cited previous Supreme Court decisions in support of the argument and contended that Atiku and the ADC had not produced evidence from the NYSC disclaiming the issuance of Tinubu’s discharge certificate.
The lawyer therefore described the case as hypothetical and academic, while also arguing that it was incompetent as a pre-election matter.
He asked the court to uphold the defendants’ preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.
INEC has similarly challenged the case.
In a preliminary objection filed on September 7 through its lawyer, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, the electoral commission argued that the suit was statute-barred, disclosed no reasonable cause of action and amounted to an abuse of court process.
INEC also challenged the plaintiffs’ locus standi and alleged that they failed to comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.
The commission further questioned the propriety of two of the reliefs sought by Atiku and the ADC in their originating summons.