The Atiku Tinubu eligibility battle has taken a fresh turn after a Federal High Court in Abuja allowed Atiku Abubakar to serve President Bola Tinubu through the APC over a suit challenging his 2027 candidacy.
ABUJA, NIGERIA — The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar permission to serve President Bola Tinubu with court processes through the All Progressives Congress after attempts to personally serve the President failed.
According to the ruling delivered by Justice Inyang Ekwo on Wednesday, September 16, Atiku and the African Democratic Congress can use substituted service to deliver the originating processes to Tinubu through the APC. The judge directed the plaintiffs to complete service within seven days and adjourned the case until September 28 for mention.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was filed by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission. The plaintiffs want the court to determine whether Tinubu can contest the 2027 presidential election following allegations concerning an NYSC discharge certificate submitted to INEC.
Newstridez reviewed the court proceedings and filings reported by multiple Nigerian news outlets, and established that Wednesday’s order concerns service of the court documents, not a ruling on whether Tinubu is qualified to contest the 2027 election. The substantive issues in the case remain before the court.
Atiku and the ADC allege that Tinubu submitted a forged National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate to INEC. They point specifically to a certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” and rely on provisions of the 1999 Constitution relating to disqualification over presentation of a forged certificate.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that Tinubu presented a forged certificate and consequently disqualify him and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election. They also want INEC removed from any position that would allow the President and the APC to remain on the final list if the court upholds their claims.
The latest court order followed an application for substituted service filed after Atiku’s legal team said it had been unable to personally serve Tinubu with the originating summons and other processes. At Wednesday’s hearing, Atiku’s lawyer, O.T. Omotayo-Ojo, held the brief for Silas Onu and asked the court to approve service through the APC.
The lawyer undertook that the plaintiffs would complete the service within seven days. Justice Ekwo subsequently granted the application and ordered that the documents be served through the ruling party. The order clears the immediate procedural issue that had prevented the matter from progressing after an earlier hearing.
The service dispute had already delayed proceedings. At the September 1 sitting, Atiku’s lawyer told the court that attempts to personally serve Tinubu had failed and requested permission for substituted service. Tinubu’s lawyer, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, offered to receive the processes on the President’s behalf, but the opposing legal team sought a written undertaking confirming his authority.
Justice Ekwo did not resolve that disagreement at the time and adjourned the matter. The latest ruling now provides a specific route for Atiku’s team to serve the President, allowing the case to move toward consideration of the legal objections and substantive claims.
Tinubu and the APC have already challenged the suit. In a joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, they denied submitting a forged certificate or Form CF001 to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections. They also argued that the NYSC had never denied issuing a discharge certificate to Tinubu.
Their legal team has also questioned Atiku’s right to bring the case and the competence of the action. Counsel Akin Olujinmi, SAN, argued that an allegation of forgery amounts to a criminal allegation that must meet the required standard of proof.
Olujinmi further argued that evidence from the institution alleged to have issued the document would be necessary to establish that it was forged. He said Atiku and the ADC had not produced a disclaimer from the NYSC denying that it issued the certificate attributed to Tinubu.
The Tinubu and APC legal teams also argued that the case amounts to a pre-election matter that falls outside the period allowed for such challenges. They urged the Federal High Court to dismiss the action rather than allow it to proceed to a substantive determination.
INEC has separately challenged the competence of the suit. The electoral commission raised several preliminary objections, including statute-bar, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and alleged abuse of court process. INEC also argued that the plaintiffs did not comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement under the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.
The commission has also challenged some of the reliefs sought by Atiku and the ADC. Its position means that the court will have to deal with procedural and jurisdictional questions before it can determine the core allegations, depending on how Justice Ekwo handles the pending objections.
Data reviewed by Newstridez shows that the case has now moved beyond the immediate service problem that stalled the September 1 proceedings. However, Wednesday’s order does not establish that the alleged certificate is forged, nor does it determine whether Tinubu is eligible to contest the 2027 presidential election.
That distinction remains important because the political debate around the case has already generated strong claims from supporters of both sides. The court’s permission only allows Atiku’s team to serve the President through the APC. It does not amount to a finding against Tinubu.
The legal dispute comes as political parties prepare for the 2027 presidential election, with Tinubu seeking another term and Atiku emerging as the presidential candidate of the ADC. The eligibility case therefore carries political significance beyond the immediate legal arguments because its outcome could affect the list of candidates permitted to participate in the election.
Atiku and the ADC are relying on Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution, as amended, which deals with disqualification where a candidate presents a forged certificate to INEC. Their case also raises questions about the interaction between constitutional provisions and the Electoral Act 2026.
The plaintiffs contend that constitutional provisions should prevail where they conflict with legislation. They are asking the court to determine whether provisions of the Electoral Act can restrict their ability to challenge Tinubu’s eligibility before the election.
Tinubu’s lawyers, however, have challenged the legal basis of the action and the timing of the case. They have argued that Atiku lacks the legal standing required to bring the challenge and that the suit failed to meet statutory requirements.
The two sides are therefore approaching the case from sharply different legal positions. Atiku’s team wants the court to examine the eligibility allegations and the documents in dispute, while Tinubu, the APC and INEC are asking the court to dismiss the case on procedural and jurisdictional grounds.
The next major date is September 28, when the Federal High Court is scheduled to mention the matter. By then, Atiku’s team is expected to have completed service of the originating processes on Tinubu through the APC in line with the court’s order.
The court’s handling of the pending objections will determine whether the case proceeds further and how the substantive allegations are considered. The parties may also file additional processes as the legal battle develops.
Meanwhile, the allegations concerning the NYSC certificate remain contested. Atiku’s camp says the document submitted to INEC bears a name that raises questions about its authenticity, while Tinubu and the APC deny submitting a forged certificate and say the NYSC has never disclaimed the document.
As at the time of filing this report, the Atiku Tinubu eligibility case had not produced a judicial finding that Tinubu submitted a forged certificate or that he was disqualified from the 2027 presidential election. The Federal High Court has only authorised substituted service through the APC and fixed September 28 for further proceedings.
The next phase will focus on service of the court papers and the objections raised by Tinubu, the APC and INEC. Until the court rules on those issues and, if necessary, examines the substantive claims, the allegations remain matters before the court rather than established findings.
