ELIGIBILITY SUIT: COURT GRANTS ATIKU LEAVE TO SERVE TINUBU

Read Time:3 Minute, 54 Second

By:Aminat Tajudeen

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday authorised former Vice President and African Democratic Congress presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, to serve court documents on President Bola Tinubu through the All Progressives Congress.

Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the request while ruling on an ex parte application filed by Atiku’s lawyer, O.T. Omotayo-Ojo, seeking permission for substituted service on the President.

Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential election over an allegation that a National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission was forged.

The case, filed as FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, lists Tinubu, the APC and INEC as the first, second and third defendants respectively.

The plaintiffs are also seeking an order directing INEC to remove Tinubu’s name and that of the APC from its list of candidates and political parties for the 2027 presidential election.

While presenting the application, Omotayo-Ojo told the court that the plaintiffs had been unable to personally serve Tinubu with the originating summons and other court processes.

He consequently asked the court to allow the documents to be served on the President through the APC, which is also a defendant in the case.

Justice Ekwo granted the request.

Following an undertaking by Omotayo-Ojo, who appeared on behalf of Silas Onu, that service would be completed within seven days, the judge directed the plaintiffs to serve the processes within the stipulated period.

The court thereafter adjourned the matter until September 28 for mention.

At the last hearing on September 1, Onu had informed the court that Tinubu had yet to be personally served with the originating summons and requested an order permitting substituted service.

Meanwhile, Tinubu, the APC and INEC have filed separate responses challenging the competence of the case and asking the court to dismiss it.

In a joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, Tinubu and the APC urged the court to throw out the suit, arguing that it was incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute the action.

They also denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.

Represented by the APC Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, the first and second defendants further maintained that they did not submit Form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or 2027 elections, contrary to the plaintiffs’ allegations.

The defendants also stated that the NYSC had never denied issuing a discharge certificate to Tinubu upon completion of his national service.

They argued that no constitutional provision had been violated and that the submission of Tinubu’s personal particulars to INEC had not caused any injustice to the plaintiffs.

In a written address accompanying their preliminary objection, counsel to Tinubu and the APC, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, argued that the allegation of forgery amounted to a criminal allegation that must be established beyond reasonable doubt under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.

Olujinmi submitted that proving the alleged forgery of a certificate required a disclaimer from the institution purported to have issued the document.

Relying on previous Supreme Court decisions, he argued that an allegation of forgery could not be sustained without evidence from the issuing institution confirming that it did not issue the document or that parts of it were not produced by the institution.

He also cited a Supreme Court position that establishing forgery requires both the original document from which the alleged forgery was made and the forged document itself.

The senior lawyer maintained that Atiku and the ADC had not presented any evidence from the NYSC Directorate denying the issuance of the discharge certificate attributed to Tinubu.

He therefore described the case as hypothetical, academic and lacking concrete facts.

Olujinmi further argued that the suit was incompetent because it constituted a pre-election matter and that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to challenge Tinubu’s candidacy on the APC platform.

He urged the court to uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the case.

Similarly, INEC, through its counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, filed a preliminary objection on September 7 challenging the competence of the suit.

The commission cited grounds including statute-bar, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and alleged abuse of court process.

INEC also argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement contained in Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.

The electoral body further questioned the propriety of Reliefs 2 and 3 contained in the originating summons and asked the court to dismiss the suit.