Tinubu’s Credentials: APC Faults Substituted Service Order In Atiku Suit

The All Progressives Congress (APC) has challenged the Federal High Court’s order permitting former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to serve President Bola Tinubu with court processes through the party.

The APC argued that the order was unnecessary because Tinubu’s legal team had already obtained the originating processes, filed a preliminary objection and submitted his defence before the substituted-service application was granted.

The party set out its position in a letter dated September 22, 2026, addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court in Abuja and directed to the Registrar of Court 6, presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwo.

The letter, signed by the APC National Secretary, Ajibola Basiru, concerned Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, instituted by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission.

Justice Ekwo had, on September 16, granted Atiku and the ADC permission to serve Tinubu through the APC after their lawyers told the court that attempts to personally serve the President had been unsuccessful. The order directed that the processes be served within seven days.

The APC said it learned of the order only through what it described as “media propaganda embarked on by the plaintiffs immediately after the order was made.”

It also stated that the plaintiffs had not served the party with an enrolled copy of the order.

The ruling party said it respected the authority of the courts but felt obliged to draw the court’s attention to what it regarded as an unnecessary use of its processes.

According to the APC’s account, the suit was filed in August and named Tinubu, the APC and INEC as the first, second and third defendants.

The party said Atiku and the ADC served the second and third defendants but did not initially serve Tinubu.

It added that Tinubu, after learning about the suit through media reports, instructed a legal team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, to represent him.

When the matter came up on September 1, Tinubu’s lawyer, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, reportedly informed the court that he was prepared to accept service on the President’s behalf.

The APC said the plaintiffs rejected the offer, leading the court to adjourn the matter to September 28.

The party further stated that Olanipekun subsequently wrote the court on September 10, informing it that Tinubu had authorised his legal team to obtain the originating processes and certified copies.

According to the APC, Tinubu’s lawyers obtained the certified copies on September 11, filed a preliminary objection on September 14 and submitted a substantive defence with a written address on September 15.

The party said it served both documents on the plaintiffs’ lawyers, who acknowledged receipt.

The APC said it was therefore surprised that the plaintiffs proceeded with the application for substituted service on September 16 without drawing the court’s attention to the fact that Tinubu had already filed and served his defence.

It also stressed that the party had no authority from Tinubu to accept court documents on his behalf.

“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 stated.

The party added that both it and Tinubu had filed their respective responses and were prepared to proceed with the case.

Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential election over allegations concerning the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to INEC and the name appearing on the document. The allegations form part of the plaintiffs’ case, and Tinubu and the APC have disputed them.

The plaintiffs are also asking the court to direct INEC to remove Tinubu and the APC from the list of candidates and political parties participating in the election.

The APC and Tinubu have challenged the suit, while INEC has separately raised objections to its competence.

The case remains before Justice Ekwo, with the next proceedings scheduled for September 28.