Tinubu Credentials: APC Challenges Atiku’s Substituted Service Request
The All Progressives Congress has written to the Federal High Court in Abuja to argue that an order for substituted service granted against President Bola Tinubu in the suit filed by Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress challenging his eligibility for the 2027 election was needless.
The party insisted that the President’s lawyers had already filed and served his defence before the order was made.
In a letter dated September 22, 2026, and addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court for the attention of the Registrar of Court 6 presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwo, the party said it only learnt of the order “through the media propaganda embarked on by the plaintiffs immediately after the order was made.”
It stressed that the plaintiffs “have not served any Enrolled Order on the APC up to this moment.”
The letter, signed by the party’s National Secretary, Ajibola Basiru, and made available to our correspondent on Tuesday, was written in respect of Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026.
Atiku and the ADC are seeking to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential race, principally over a discrepancy between the name on a National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission and the president’s official name.
The order being contested by the APC was made on September 16, 2026, permitting the plaintiffs to serve court processes on the President through the party’s national secretariat, after his direct service had proved difficult.
According to the party, while it respects all courts in the country, inclusive of all orders made by them, it also felt “under a duty to bring it to the attention of the court when its processes are being abusively employed to harass the public and/or any of our members, particularly, the leader of our party, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR.”
Basiru, in a six-point chronology, laid out what he said were the facts of how the case had progressed.
According to him, the suit was filed against Tinubu, the party and INEC as first, second and third defendants sometime in August 2026, following which Atiku “addressed the press after filing the action and informed the general public that he personally went to the registry of the court to depose to the supporting affidavit.”
The party said that although the plaintiffs served the second and third defendants, they, “for reasons best known to them, refused or failed to serve the first defendant,” Tinubu.
They added that the President had briefed a legal team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) to represent his interests, as soon as he learnt of the suit through media reports.
Narrating the sequence of court appearances, the APC said the matter came up on the cause list on September 1, 2026, when one of Tinubu’s lawyers, Omosanya Popoola (SAN), informed the court of his readiness to accept service on the President’s behalf, having been so instructed.
According to Basiru, counsel for the plaintiffs “objected to the harmless request which ordinarily, the plaintiffs or any plaintiff should have gladly accepted,” prompting the court to adjourn to September 28, 2026, for mention.
The party added that on Tinubu’s further instruction, Olanipekun formally wrote the court on September 10, 2026, to the effect that his client had instructed his legal team to collect the originating processes filed by the plaintiffs and obtain certified true copies, and that Tinubu had also directed that his defence be filed immediately after the documents were obtained.
Based on that, the letter said, the President’s lawyers “formally obtained and paid for Certified True Copies of the processes on 11th September, 2026,” after which they filed a preliminary objection to the processes on September 14, and followed with “a defence to the action with a comprehensive written address” the next day, September 15.
Both the preliminary objection and the defence, the party said, were served on the plaintiffs’ counsel on September 14 and 15 respectively, “and his office duly acknowledged receipt of service.”
It was against this backdrop, the APC said, that it found it curious that the application for substituted service was moved on September 16 by the plaintiffs’ counsel “and the attention of the court was not drawn to the above facts, particularly that the first defendant’s defence in the action had been filed and served on the plaintiffs’ counsel.”
The party further told the court that it does not have Tinubu’s “consent or authority… to receive any processes in this matter on his behalf,” noting that the President has his own counsel of choice representing him in the suit, a fact it said was already known to the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
“It is for the foregoing reasons that the APC wishes to inform the court that the ex parte application for substituted service filed by the plaintiffs was unnecessary, given the trajectory of the facts stated above,” the letter read, adding that both the party and Tinubu “have filed their respective defences to the plaintiffs’ action, and are ready to prosecute the case accordingly.”
The suit at the centre of the dispute was instituted by Atiku and the ADC in August, asking the court to determine whether Tinubu ought to be barred from the 2027 poll over the alleged discrepancy between the name on his NYSC discharge certificate and his official name, and inviting the court to invoke relevant sections of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, along with provisions of the Electoral Act.
When the matter first came up for mention on September 1, the plaintiffs’ lawyer had told the court that his team had been unable to personally serve Tinubu with the originating processes, prompting the adjournment to September 28 for hearing.
At the same sitting, Popoola’s offer to accept service on the President’s behalf on the spot was turned down by the plaintiffs, who said they wanted to steer clear of any future arguments over technicalities in how service was effected.
INEC, on its part, has since filed a counter-affidavit describing the suit as an abuse of court process and contending that the plaintiffs lack the locus standi to institute the action.
The suit is one of a string of pre-election legal battles that have trailed Tinubu’s candidacy in past cycles, with disputes over service of process on him a recurring feature of such litigation.
The matter remains before Justice Ekwo, with the APC’s letter now placed before the registry ahead of further proceedings.
