Published by Osasere Edomwonyi Ikpoba
The legal battle challenging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu's eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election has hit an early procedural roadblock, as the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned the suit filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar over a dispute concerning the proper service of court documents. The case, which could fundamentally alter the political landscape ahead of the 2027 elections, will now be mentioned again on September 28, 2026.
At the resumed proceedings before Justice Inyang Ekwo on Tuesday, Atiku's lead counsel, Joseph Onu Silas, informed the court that efforts to personally serve President Tinubu with the originating summons had been unsuccessful. Silas consequently sought an order permitting substituted service to enable the suit to proceed. However, the matter took a dramatic turn when Omosanya Popoola, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria who appeared for Tinubu, offered to accept the court process on behalf of the President. Popoola urged Justice Ekwo to direct Atiku's counsel to hand over the originating summons to him in open court for onward delivery to his client.
The offer triggered an immediate disagreement between the lawyers. Atiku's counsel insisted that Popoola should first provide a written undertaking confirming that he had Tinubu's mandate to accept the process on his behalf. Another Senior Advocate, Alex Izinyon, who appeared for the Independent National Electoral Commission, also attempted to persuade the court to allow the process to be served through Tinubu's counsel so that the case could proceed. However, Justice Ekwo declined to order service through counsel without proper authorisation, adjourning the matter to enable Atiku's legal team to regularise the service of the court process. Ultimately, the judge fixed September 28 for further mention of the case.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was filed by Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, with the ADC listed as the second plaintiff. President Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress, and INEC were named as the first, second, and third defendants respectively. Atiku is asking the court to determine whether Tinubu is qualified to contest the 2027 presidential election under Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i), and 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, as well as relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
Central to Atiku's case is a serious allegation concerning a National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to INEC in Tinubu's name. According to the former vice president, the certificate bears the name "Tinubu Bola Adekunle" rather than "Bola Ahmed Tinubu" and was submitted to INEC in connection with both the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections. Atiku has alleged that the document was not a certificate obtained by Tinubu and asked the court to determine whether its submission amounted to the presentation of a forged certificate, which would trigger the disqualification provision contained in Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution. In a 25-paragraph affidavit personally deposed to in support of the suit, Atiku averred that the NYSC certificate is "clearly not one obtained by the 1st defendant, as it belongs to one Adekunle" and that Tinubu had been parading the alleged forged certificate since 1999, when he contested the Lagos State governorship election.
Atiku has also placed INEC on notice to produce Tinubu's Form CF001 submitted for the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections, seeking a determination of whether the person named "Tinubu Bola Adekunle" on the NYSC certificate is the same person as President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. "If the certificate belongs to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, let that be established before the court. If 'Tinubu Bola Adekunle' and 'Bola Ahmed Tinubu' are one and the same person for the purpose of that certificate, let the evidence establish it," Atiku stated in his affidavit.
Beyond the certificate controversy, Atiku and the ADC are also challenging provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which they contend restrict the circumstances under which a candidate's qualification can be challenged before an election. They are further challenging the effect of the legislation on Section 139(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution, arguing that an Act of the National Assembly cannot override the Constitution.
Justice Ekwo also issued a stern warning to all parties against discussing the case on social media, gagging them from making public comments that could prejudice the proceedings. INEC's counsel, Alex Izinyon, urged the court to move quickly with the matter, noting that more than 17 days had passed since the suit was filed, and stated that the electoral body was prepared to file its defence within 10 days.
The case represents the latest chapter in the long-running political rivalry between Tinubu and Atiku, who faced each other in the 2023 presidential election, which Tinubu won. Both politicians are expected to feature prominently in the race for the presidency ahead of the 2027 elections, with Tinubu seeking re-election on the platform of the APC, while Atiku is associated with the ADC. The adjournment means the substantive issues at the heart of the suit—whether Tinubu's alleged submission of a certificate bearing a different name disqualifies him from seeking a second term—will remain unresolved for nearly another month. For now, the legal showdown remains stuck at the procedural starting gate, awaiting proper service and the resolution of a dispute that has already exposed the deep fault lines in Nigeria's political landscape.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments