The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar permission to serve President Bola Tinubu with court documents in his 2027 eligibility suit through the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Justice Inyang Edem Ekwo granted the order on Wednesday while ruling on an ex-parte application filed by Atiku in a suit instituted alongside the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The plaintiffs are seeking an order disqualifying Tinubu from contesting the January 16, 2027 presidential election.
Atiku’s counsel, Omotayo Ojo, appearing for Silas Onu, told the court that the plaintiffs would effect service within seven days.
Justice Ekwo consequently ordered that the documents be served within seven days and adjourned the matter until September 28 for mention.
At the September 1 proceedings, Onu had informed the court that his client had been unable to personally serve Tinubu with the originating documents.
He subsequently sought the court’s permission to serve the president through substituted means, specifically via the APC.
The APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are also defendants in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026.
Tinubu, the APC and INEC have already filed counter-affidavits and preliminary objections challenging the competence of the suit and asking the court to dismiss it.
In their joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, Tinubu and the APC argued that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to institute the action and that the suit was incompetent.
They also denied allegations that they submitted forged certificates to INEC for the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
The president and the APC maintained that they did not submit any Form CF001 to INEC for either election, contrary to the claims contained in the suit.
They further stated that the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) had never denied issuing Tinubu a discharge certificate at the end of his service year.
Tinubu and the APC also argued that no constitutional provision had been breached by the submission of the president’s personal particulars to INEC.
In a written address filed by their counsel, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, the defendants argued that allegations of forgery, being criminal in nature, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
Olujinmi submitted that where a document is alleged to have been forged, evidence from the institution purported to have issued it would be required to establish that it did not issue the document.
Citing a previous Supreme Court decision, he argued that proof of forgery requires evidence of both the original document from which the alleged forgery was made and the forged document itself.
The lawyer maintained that Atiku and the ADC had not produced any evidence from the NYSC disclaiming the issuance of the discharge certificate attributed to Tinubu.
He therefore described the case as hypothetical and academic, arguing that it lacked the necessary factual basis.
Olujinmi also contended that the suit was incompetent as 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 suit.
INEC, in a separate preliminary objection filed on September 7 through its counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, also challenged the competence of the case.
The electoral commission raised grounds including statute-bar, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and alleged abuse of court process.
INEC further 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.
The commission also challenged the propriety of the second and third reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in their originating summons.
