The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday granted an application by the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Atiku Abubakar, to serve court processes on President Bola Tinubu through the All Progressives Congress.
Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the application while ruling on an ex parte motion filed by Atiku’s counsel, O.T. Omotayo-Ojo, seeking an order for substituted service on the President.
Atiku and his party, ADC, are seeking the disqualification of Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election over an allegedly forged National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, has Tinubu, APC and INEC as the first to third defendants, respectively.
So This Happened (EP 426): Poco Lee released from detention, UK sexual-offence case remains active
The plaintiffs are asking the court to compel INEC to remove the names of Tinubu and APC from the list of candidates and political parties for the 2027 presidential election.
Moving the motion on Wednesday, Omotayo-Ojo told the court that the application became necessary because the plaintiffs had been unable to effect personal service of the originating summons and other processes on Tinubu.
He, therefore, urged the court to permit the documents to be served on the President through the APC, the second defendant in the suit.
Justice Ekwo granted the application.
Following an undertaking by Omotayo-Ojo, who held the brief of Silas Onu, that the plaintiffs would effect service within seven days, the judge ordered that the processes be served within the period.
The judge subsequently adjourned the suit until September 28 for mention.
At the previous proceedings on September 1, Onu had informed the court that the plaintiffs were yet to personally serve Tinubu with the originating summons and had sought an order permitting substituted service.
Meanwhile, Tinubu, the APC and INEC have filed responses challenging the competence of the suit and urging the court to dismiss it.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, Tinubu and the APC asked the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety, arguing that it was incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the action.
The first and second defendants denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
Through the APC Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, they also averred that they did not submit Form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or 2027 election as alleged by the plaintiffs.
The defendants further stated that the NYSC had never denied issuing a discharge certificate to Tinubu at the end of his service.
They argued that contrary to paragraph 27 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, no constitutional provision had been breached and no injustice had been done to the plaintiffs by the submission of the President’s personal particulars to INEC.
In a written address filed alongside their preliminary objection, counsel to Tinubu and the APC, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, argued that the allegation of forgery constituted a criminal allegation which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
Olujinmi argued that the established legal requirement for proving that a certificate was forged was a disclaimer by the institution alleged to have issued it.
He cited a previous decision of the Supreme Court, arguing that without evidence from the institution or body purported to have issued a certificate or document, disclaiming its issuance or stating that part of it was not made by it, an allegation of forgery could not be sustained.
He also cited the Supreme Court as holding that “in order to prove forgery, or that a document is forged, two documents must be produced viz: the document from which the forgery was (a) made; and (b) the forgery or the forged document.”
The senior lawyer argued that Atiku and the ADC had produced no evidence from the NYSC Directorate disclaiming the issuance of the discharge certificate to Tinubu.
He consequently described the suit as hypothetical and academic and devoid of real facts.
Olujinmi further argued that the suit was incompetent, being a pre-election matter, and that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to challenge Tinubu’s candidacy on the platform of the APC.
He urged the court to uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.
Similarly, INEC, in its preliminary objection filed on September 7 through its counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, challenged the competence of the suit on grounds including statute-bar, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and abuse of court process.
The electoral commission also argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.
INEC further challenged the propriety of Reliefs 2 and 3 in the originating summons and urged the court to dismiss the suit.
