The All Progressives Congress (APC) has challenged an order of the Federal High Court in Abuja permitting substituted service of court processes on President Bola Tinubu in a suit filed by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC), insisting that the order was unnecessary because the President had already filed and served his defence.
In a letter dated September 22, 2026, and addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court for the attention of the Registrar of Court 6, presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwo, the ruling party argued that Tinubu’s legal team had taken steps to participate in the proceedings before the order was granted.
The letter, signed by the APC National Secretary, Ajibola Basiru, said the party only learnt of the September 16 order through what it described as “media propaganda embarked on by the plaintiffs immediately after the order was made.”
The party also maintained that the plaintiffs had yet to serve it with an enrolled copy of the order.
More Read
The correspondence relates to Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, instituted by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), challenging the President’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
The plaintiffs are seeking the court’s determination on whether an alleged discrepancy between the name on Tinubu’s National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to INEC and his official name constitutes grounds for disqualification from the presidential race.
The September 16 order, now being contested by the APC, authorised the plaintiffs to serve court processes on Tinubu through the party’s national secretariat after efforts to effect personal service on the President reportedly proved unsuccessful.
More Read
However, in its letter to the court, the APC said the President had already instructed a legal team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), to represent him in the matter and had taken steps to obtain the court documents and file his defence.
According to Basiru, the suit was instituted in August 2026, after which Atiku reportedly addressed a press conference, informing the public that he had personally visited the court registry to depose to the supporting affidavit.
The APC said that although the plaintiffs served the party and INEC, they failed to serve Tinubu, the first defendant, for reasons known only to them.
The party further stated that Tinubu became aware of the suit through media reports and subsequently engaged a legal team to protect his interests.
Recounting the proceedings, Basiru said the case first appeared on the court’s cause list on September 1, 2026, when one of Tinubu’s lawyers, Omosanya Popoola (SAN), informed the court that he had instructions to accept service of the originating processes on behalf of the President.
However, the APC alleged that the plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the offer, which it described as a straightforward attempt to facilitate service and avoid unnecessary delays.
More Read
The court subsequently adjourned the matter to September 28, 2026, for mention.
Basiru said that, following further instructions from Tinubu, Olanipekun formally wrote to the court on September 10, indicating that the President had authorised his legal team to collect the originating processes and obtain certified true copies of the relevant documents.
The letter also stated that Tinubu had directed his lawyers to file his defence immediately after obtaining the documents.
According to the APC, the President’s legal team obtained and paid for certified true copies of the court processes on September 11.
The lawyers subsequently filed a preliminary objection on September 14 and a defence, accompanied by a comprehensive written address, on September 15.
The party said both documents were served on the plaintiffs’ counsel on September 14 and 15, respectively, and that receipt was duly acknowledged by the lawyer’s office.
Against this background, the APC questioned why the plaintiffs proceeded with an ex parte application for substituted service on September 16 without drawing the court’s attention to the steps already taken by Tinubu’s legal team.
The party argued that the application was unnecessary, given that the President had already obtained the originating processes, filed his defence and served the plaintiffs.
It further clarified that it had neither the consent nor the authority of Tinubu to receive court processes on his behalf, stressing that the President had engaged his own lawyers, whose involvement was already known to the plaintiffs.
While reaffirming its respect for the judiciary and court orders, the APC said it considered it necessary to bring the circumstances surrounding the application to the court’s attention.
The party stated that it was concerned about what it described as the abusive use of court processes to harass members of the public and its officials, particularly Tinubu, whom it identified as the party’s leader.
“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 the President had filed their respective defences and were prepared to prosecute the case.
Meanwhile, INEC has filed a counter-affidavit in the suit, describing the action as an abuse of court process and arguing that Atiku and the ADC lack the legal standing, or locus standi, to institute the proceedings.
The suit is among the legal challenges surrounding Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election, with the plaintiffs asking the court to consider relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the Electoral Act.
The dispute over service of court processes has emerged as a key procedural issue in the case, with the plaintiffs maintaining that personal service on the President had proved difficult, while the APC insists that Tinubu had already taken formal steps to defend himself.
The matter remains before Justice Ekwo, with the APC’s letter now before the court registry ahead of the next proceedings scheduled for September 28, 2026.
