Atiku wants Tinubu in court: Why he had to go through the APC
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar wants President Bola Tinubu to answer a court challenge to his eligibility for the 2027 presidential election.
But before the substance of the case can properly move forward, Atiku has had to overcome an unexpected procedural hurdle: how to get the court papers to Tinubu.
On Wednesday, September 16, the Federal High Court in Abuja gave Atiku and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) permission to serve Tinubu with the court processes through the All Progressives Congress (APC), the same party listed as the second defendant in the case.
Justice Inyang Ekwo ordered the substituted service after Atiku’s legal team told the court that attempts to personally serve the President had not succeeded. The plaintiffs were given seven days to effect the service, with the case adjourned until September 28 for mention.
That raises a simple question: Why could Atiku not simply serve Tinubu directly, and why does the APC now have to come into the process?
It started with a failed attempt to serve Tinubu
The difficulty did not begin with the court’s latest order.
When the case came up on September 1, Atiku’s lawyer told Justice Ekwo that the plaintiffs had been unable to personally serve Tinubu with the originating summons.
The President’s lawyer, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Omosanya Popoola, then offered to accept the documents on Tinubu’s behalf and deliver them to him.
But Atiku’s legal team did not accept that arrangement immediately.
His lawyer wanted Popoola to provide a written undertaking confirming that he had Tinubu’s authority to receive the court documents for him.
That disagreement prevented the case from moving forward at the time, leading the court to adjourn the matter and giving Atiku’s team an opportunity to regularise the service.
The issue was therefore not whether Tinubu had a lawyer in court.
It was whether the originating process had been properly served on the person against whom the case was brought.
Why does service matter so much?
Serving court papers is not merely a formality.
A defendant ordinarily needs to be properly notified of proceedings against them before the case can proceed against them. The Federal High Court’s 2019 Civil Procedure Rules provide for personal service of originating processes, while also giving the court power to order substituted service where personal service cannot conveniently be effected.
That is where Atiku’s application became important.
Rather than continuing to wait for personal service on Tinubu, the plaintiffs asked the court for permission to use another method.
The court accepted that request.
And the method approved was particularly notable: the documents can now be served through the APC.
Why the APC?
The answer lies partly in how the case itself is structured.
Atiku and the ADC did not sue Tinubu alone.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, lists Tinubu as the first defendant, the APC as the second defendant and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the third defendant.
The APC is therefore already a party to the case.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to determine questions surrounding Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election and are seeking orders affecting both Tinubu and the APC.
The court’s latest decision means the plaintiffs can use the APC as the channel for delivering the process to Tinubu instead of insisting on physically handing the documents to the President himself.
This is what lawyers describe as substituted service: a court-approved alternative to personal service where the normal method has not worked.
It does not mean the APC is being made responsible for Tinubu’s defence.
It also does not mean the APC has been found to have any wrongdoing.
The order concerns how the court documents are to reach Tinubu so that the proceedings can continue.
What exactly is Atiku asking the court to decide?
The service dispute should not distract from the much bigger issue at the heart of the case.
Atiku and the ADC are challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
A major part of their case concerns an alleged National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate which they claim was submitted to INEC in Tinubu’s name.
They argue that the document carries the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” rather than “Bola Ahmed Tinubu” and are asking the court to determine questions surrounding the document and whether its presentation amounts to the presentation of a forged certificate under the Constitution.
They are relying, among other provisions, on Section 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution, which deals with disqualification where a person has presented a forged certificate to INEC.
The plaintiffs are seeking orders that would prevent Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election if their claims are established.
But that is what Atiku is asking the court to determine, not what the court has already decided.
The latest ruling was about service of the court process, not Tinubu’s eligibility.
Tinubu and APC are fighting the case
Tinubu and the APC have already indicated that they intend to contest the allegations.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, they denied submitting any forged certificate or Form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
They also argued that the NYSC had never denied issuing a discharge certificate to Tinubu.
Their lawyer, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, argued that an allegation of forgery is a criminal allegation that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He also argued that Atiku and the ADC had not produced evidence from NYSC disclaiming the issuance of the certificate.
INEC has also challenged the case, raising objections including statute-bar, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and alleged non-compliance with the Federal High Court’s 2026 pre-election practice directions.
So the court is dealing with more than one question.
Before it eventually determines the substantive allegations, it may first have to deal with objections over whether the case is properly before it.
What happens after the APC receives the papers?
The immediate consequence of Wednesday’s ruling is straightforward.
Atiku’s legal team now has a court-approved route for serving Tinubu.
They have seven days to carry out the substituted service, after which the case returns to court on September 28 for mention.
That means the service problem that stalled the case earlier in September now has a court-approved solution.
But it does not settle the substantive dispute.
Tinubu has not been disqualified.
The court has not ruled that the alleged certificate was forged.
The court has not ruled that Tinubu is ineligible for the 2027 election.
It has simply cleared the way for Atiku’s case to formally reach him through the APC.
So why did Atiku have to go through the APC?
Because personal service on Tinubu had not been successfully completed, while the court has the power to approve another method of service.
And because the APC is already a defendant in the same suit, Justice Ekwo approved it as the channel through which the court process can be served on Tinubu.
In other words, Atiku’s legal battle with Tinubu has reached an unusual stage where the first challenge was not yet about whether Tinubu could contest the election, but how the person being challenged could be formally brought into the proceedings.
Now that the court has approved substituted service through the APC, the focus can shift back to the bigger question: whether Atiku’s challenge to Tinubu’s eligibility will survive the objections raised by Tinubu, the APC and INEC and eventually be heard on its merits.
For now, the September 28 proceedings will be another step in that process.