The All Progressives Congress (APC) has objected to a Federal High Court order granting permission for substituted service on President Bola Tinubu in a suit filed by Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). In a letter dated September 22, 2026, the APC described the ex parte application for substituted service as unnecessary and misleading. The party argued that Tinubu's legal team had already filed and served his defence on Atiku's counsel before the order was moved.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was instituted by Atiku and his co-plaintiff against President Bola Tinubu, the APC, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants, respectively. The APC National Secretary, Senator Ajibola Basiru, signed the letter to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice I.E. Ekwo. Basiru revealed that Tinubu's legal team had already taken steps to defend his case.
According to Basiru, when the matter was listed on September 1, 2026, President Tinubu's counsel, Mr. Omosanya Popoola, SAN, appeared in court and expressed readiness to accept service of the court processes on behalf of the President. However, Atiku's legal counsel objected to the request. The APC National Secretary further stated that on September 10, 2026, President Tinubu's lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, formally wrote the Court to collect the originating processes filed by the Plaintiffs on his behalf.
The APC National Secretary stressed that the President's legal team formally obtained and paid for Certified True Copies on September 11, 2026, after which they filed a Preliminary Objection on September 14 and a comprehensive defence alongside a written address on September 15. The party emphasized that it lacks the legal mandate to receive court processes on behalf of the President. Basiru added that the APC does not have the consent or authority of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to receive any processes in this matter on his behalf.
The APC expressed worry that despite these steps, counsel representing Atiku went ahead on September 16, 2026, to move an ex parte application for substituted service through the APC without disclosing to Justice Ekwo that the President had already served his defence. The party cautioned the court against allowing its processes to be abusively employed for media propaganda and public harassment. Basiru noted that both the Preliminary Objection and the defence filed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu's counsel were served on the Plaintiffs' counsel on September 14 and 15, 2026, respectively.
The APC's objection to the substituted service highlights the complexities in the eligibility suit filed by Atiku Abubakar against President Bola Tinubu. The suit has raised concerns about the President's eligibility to contest the election. The APC's letter to the court registrar underscores the party's determination to ensure that the court processes are not misused. The development has sparked debate about the propriety of the court order and the motives of the parties involved.
The case is ongoing, with the court yet to rule on the APC's objection to the substituted service. The President's eligibility suit has generated significant interest, with many Nigerians following the developments closely. The APC's objection has added a new dimension to the case, which will likely continue to attract attention in the coming weeks.
Key points
- The APC has objected to a court order allowing substituted service on President Bola Tinubu in an eligibility suit filed by Atiku Abubakar.
- The party argued that Tinubu's legal team had already filed and served his defence on Atiku's counsel before the order was moved.
- The case has raised concerns about the President's eligibility to contest the election.
