•Atiku and Tinubu
The Federal High Court in Abuja today granted an application by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), to serve court documents on President Bola Tinubu through the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the request while ruling on an ex-parte motion moved by Atiku’s counsel, O.T. Omotayo-Ojo, seeking an order of substituted service of the processes on the president, reports NAN.
Atiku, the former vice president, and his party, ADC, had filed the suit praying Justice Inyang Ekwo to disqualify President Tinubu and APC from contesting in the 2027 presidential election.
The plaintiffs alleged that APC submitted a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate of Tinubu to INEC.
The plaintiffs, in the originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, sued the President, APC and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.
They prayed the court to compel INEC to remove Tinubu and APC’s names from the list of candidates and parties for the presidential poll.
Moving the motion, Omotayo-Ojo informed the court that the motion ex-parte was filed following inability to effect the service on the 1st defendant.
The lawyer, through the application, therefore prayed the court for an order effecting the service of the court documents through the 2nd defendant (APC)
Justice Ekwo granted the prayer after the application was moved.
Following information by Omotayo-Ojo, who held the brief of Silas Onu, that the plaintiffs could effect service within seven days, the judge ordered that service should be done within seven days.
He subsequently adjourned the matter untill Sept. 28 for mention.
Onu had, on Sept. 1, told the court that his client was yet to serve the originating summons on President Tinubu personally.
Silas said he requires an order of the court to serve the documents through substituted means.
Meanwhile, Tinubu, APC and INEC had since responded to the suit by filing counter-affidavits and preliminary objections, querying the competence of the suit and praying the court to dismiss it.
In a joint counter affidavit filed on September 9, the president and APC prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirty for being incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to Institute the case.
The 1st and 2nd defendants denied submitting any forged certificate to the commission either for the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
The duo, through the APC Director of Legal Services, Mr Sanusi Samaila, averred that his clients did not submit Form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or the 2027 poll as claimed by the plaintiffs.
They stated that the NYSC has never denied issuing National Youth service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to the 1st defendant at the end of his service yestate
They argued that contrary to Paragraph 27 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, no constitutional provision had been breached nor had any injustice been done to the plaintiffs by the 1st and 2nd defendant’s action of submission of the president’s personal particulars to INEC.
Tinubu and APC, also in a written address attached to the application and filed by Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, the senior lawyer raised a number of objections to the suit.
Olujinmi observed that though the plaintiffs’ complaint is an allegation of forgery which is no doubt a crime, he said such allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, citing Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, among others.
He said it is a settled law that the evidence required to prove that a certificate is forged is a disclaimer from the institution that is said to have issued the certificate, citing a previous Supreme Court decision to back his argument.
According to Olujinmi, without evidence from the institution or body that is purported to have issued the certificate or other document stating that it did not issue the certificate or document or that any part of the certificate or document is not made by it, it would be idle and useless to contend that it is forged.
He said the apex court had also held that “in order to prove forgery, or that a document is forged, two documents must be produced viz: the document from which the forgery was (a) made; and (b) the forgery or the forged document.”
The lawyer, however, submitted that in the instant case, Atiku and ADC had produced no evidence from NYSC Directorate, disclaiming issuance of discharge certificate to the 1st defendant.
He stated that the suit is hypothetical and academic in nature and devoid of real facts.
Olujinmi, who described the suit as “incompetent, being a pre-election matter, ” said the plaintiffs lacked the “locus standi” to challenge President Tinubu’s candidacy of APC.
He prayed the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.
INEC, in its preliminary objection filed on Sept. 7 by its lawyer, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, challenged the competence of the suit on the grounds of statute-bar, want of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and abuse of court process.
The Commission also argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) provision of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.
The electoral umpire equally challenged the impropriety of Reliefs two and three in Atiku and ADC’s originating summons, urging the court to dismiss the suit.
