By - APC writes to Federal High Court in Abuja arguing an order allowing substituted service on President Tinubu was needless, since his defence had already been filed and served
- Party says it only learned of the September 16 order through media coverage, and insists plaintiffs never formally served it on the APC
- Underlying suit by Atiku Abubakar and the ADC seeks to disqualify Tinubu from 2027 race over alleged discrepancy in his NYSC discharge certificate name
The All Progressives Congress has pushed back against a court order permitting Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress to serve President Bola Tinubu through the party’s national secretariat, telling the Federal High Court in Abuja that the order was unnecessary given that the President’s legal team had already filed and served his defence weeks earlier.
In a letter dated September 22 and addressed to the registry of Court 6, presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwo, the APC’s National Secretary, Ajibola Basiru, said the party first became aware of the order not through any formal court process but through public statements made by the plaintiffs after it was granted. The party maintained that it had, to that point, never been served with the actual enrolled order.
The dispute centres on Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, in which Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to bar Tinubu and the APC from contesting the 2027 presidential election over what they describe as a mismatch between the name on the president’s National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate and the name he used in his submission to the Independent National Electoral Commission.
A Detailed Timeline
Basiru’s letter laid out a chronology of how the case had unfolded since it was filed in August. According to the party, Atiku had publicly announced after filing the suit that he had personally sworn to the supporting affidavit at the court registry, and while INEC and the APC were subsequently served as second and third defendants, Tinubu himself was not, something the party said happened for reasons known only to the plaintiffs.
Once the President learned of the case through media reports, he engaged a legal team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN). When the matter first came up on September 1, one of Tinubu’s lawyers, Omosanya Popoola (SAN), offered in open court to accept service on the president’s behalf. The APC said the plaintiffs’ counsel objected to that offer, and the matter was adjourned to September 28.
Nine days later, on September 10, Olanipekun wrote formally to the court confirming that Tinubu had instructed his team to obtain the case documents and move quickly to file a defence. The APC said Tinubu’s lawyers collected certified true copies of the court filings on September 11, filed a preliminary objection on September 14, and followed up with a full defence and written address on September 15, both of which, the party said, were served on and acknowledged by the plaintiffs’ counsel on those same dates.
It was against that backdrop, the APC argued, that the plaintiffs’ application for substituted service, filed and granted just a day later, on September 16, came as a surprise, since the party said the court had not been made aware that Tinubu’s defence had already been filed and served by that point.
The APC further told the court it had no authorisation from Tinubu to accept service on his behalf in the matter, noting that he has his own legal representation and that this was already known to the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The letter argued that the substituted-service application was therefore unwarranted, and stated that both the party and the president had already filed their respective defences and were prepared to proceed with the case.
Case Background
The suit is one of several pre-election legal challenges that have followed Tinubu into successive election cycles, with disputes over how he is formally served with court papers a recurring theme. INEC has already filed a counter-affidavit in the matter, describing the suit as an abuse of court process and arguing that the plaintiffs lack the standing to bring it.
The case remains before Justice Ekwo, with the APC’s letter now on file at the registry ahead of further proceedings, including the adjourned hearing date of September 28.
