Court Adjourns Atiku’s Case Against Tinubu’s 2027 Eligibility

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has adjourned proceedings until September 28 in a suit filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, which seeks to bar President Bola Ahmed Tinubu from contesting the 2027 presidential election. The legal action, filed under suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was instituted by Atiku Abubakar in his capacity as the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), with the party joined as the second plaintiff.

The listed defendants in the matter are President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (first defendant), the All Progressives Congress (APC, second defendant), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC, third defendant).

As Ejes Gist News understands, the suit centers on claims surrounding the documentation submitted to the electoral body. In an affidavit supporting the suit, Atiku Abubakar alleged that the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to INEC by President Tinubu bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle.”

The plaintiffs contend that this does not match the President’s official name, arguing that the document was not genuinely issued to him and alleging the submission of false information to the commission.

The plaintiffs further alleged that the disputed credential has been utilized by Tinubu since 1999, when he contested the Lagos State governorship election.

The court has been requested to determine whether the alleged presentation of the certificate violates constitutional provisions governing eligibility for the presidency.

Legal Arguments and Substituted Service Debates

When the matter came before Justice Inyang Ekwo on Tuesday, a legal team led by Omosanya Popoola announced its appearance for President Tinubu.

However, counsel representing Atiku Abubakar, Joseph Onu, informed the court that the plaintiffs had been unable to effect personal service of the court processes on the President. Although Popoola stated that President Tinubu had authorized his legal team to represent him in the suit, Onu maintained that the nature of the suit necessitated formal procedures regarding service.

Also Read : It Will Take 12 to 20 Years for Nigerians to Benefit From Tinubu’s Reforms

The plaintiffs’ counsel requested personal service on Tinubu or an order granting service through an authorized substituted method. Onu added that the plaintiffs would agree to service through counsel only if accompanied by a written undertaking from Tinubu authorising such service.

Counsel for INEC, Alex Iziyon, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), raised objections to the plaintiffs’ position, arguing that the physical appearance of the President’s legal counsel provided sufficient notice of the proceedings.

Iziyon urged the court to proceed expeditiously, noting that more than 17 days had elapsed since the filing of the suit, and stated that INEC was prepared to submit its response within 10 days.

Prayers Before the Court and Judicial Directives

The specific reliefs sought by Atiku Abubakar and the ADC include:

• A determination on whether the alleged submission of the disputed NYSC certificate constitutes a breach of constitutional qualifications for the office of the President.
• A judicial declaration that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu violated constitutional provisions by allegedly submitting the document to INEC during his 1999 Lagos State governorship contest.
• An order disqualifying President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) from participating in the 2027 presidential election on the basis of the alleged unverified document.

Addressing the preliminary arguments, Justice Inyang Ekwo ruled that the court could not dictate to plaintiffs how to conduct their case. Consequently, the court adjourned the matter until September 28 for further proceedings.

Justice Ekwo also issued a directive restraining all parties and their legal representation from discussing the details of the case in the media while the matter remains before the court.

The judge emphasized that the matter must be litigated strictly through established judicial processes, warning that legal counsel could face disciplinary consequences if their clients discuss the pending suit on social media platforms.