The Federal High Court in Abuja has allowed Atiku Abubakar to deliver court papers to President Bola Tinubu through the All Progressives Congress in a lawsuit challenging Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the order on Wednesday following an ex parte application presented by O.T. Omotayo-Ojo, holding brief for Silas Onu on behalf of the plaintiffs, African Democratic Congress presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar and his party. Omotayo-Ojo explained that personal service of the originating summons on the President had proven impossible. Directing that service be completed through the APC within seven days as pledged by counsel, Justice Ekwo fixed 28 September for the matter to be mentioned. The court had previously heard on 1 September that initial attempts at direct service had failed.
The underlying lawsuit, suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, names President Tinubu, the APC, and the Independent National Electoral Commission as first, second, and third defendants respectively. In their suit, the plaintiffs are praying the court to compel the electoral umpire to strike off both the President and his party from the list of candidates and political entities for the 2027 presidential election over claims that a forged National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate was presented to the commission.
In response, the defendants have launched rigorous legal challenges demanding the immediate dismissal of the suit. In a joint counter-affidavit submitted on 9 September, the President and the ruling party insisted that the plaintiffs lack legal standing and that the action is entirely incompetent.
The APC’s Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, maintained that no forged credentials or Form CF001 were delivered to the electoral body for either the 2023 or 2027 elections, noting that the discharge institution has never disowned the President’s certificate. They further argued that the submission of personal details infringed no constitutional provisions nor caused injury to the plaintiffs.
While leading the legal team for the first and second defendants, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, submitted in a written address that an allegation of certificate falsification is criminal in nature and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
Citing Supreme Court precedent, Olujinmi stated that proving such claims demands two specific documents, the original source and the alleged forgery, alongside an explicit disclaimer from the issuing authority. Stating that no such disclaimer from the NYSC Directorate had been produced, he dismissed the suit as purely academic, hypothetical, and devoid of facts, while also asserting it constitutes an improper pre-election challenge brought by parties lacking locus standi.
Concurrently, the electoral umpire filed its own preliminary objection through Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, on 7 September. The commission urged the court to strike out the case, citing time limitations, lack of standing, absence of a reasonable cause of action, and abuse of court process.
Furthermore, the commission contended that the suit failed to adhere to mandatory written deposition rules set out in Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026, whilst additionally disputing the validity of two specific reliefs sought in the originating summons.