By Ebele Ndudi
The All Progressives Congress has challenged an order
allowing former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar to serve President Bola Tinubu
with court papers through the party’s national secretariat.
In a letter dated September 22, 2026, APC National Secretary
Senator Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru told the Federal High Court in Abuja that the
substituted service was unnecessary because Tinubu’s lawyers had already
responded.
The dispute concerns a suit filed by Atiku and a
co-plaintiff against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral
Commission, listed respectively as the first, second and third defendants.
The case challenges Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027
presidential election, with the plaintiffs seeking orders requiring INEC to
remove his name and that of the APC from the relevant election list.
According to the APC, Tinubu became aware of the proceedings
through media reports and promptly instructed a legal team led by Chief Wole
Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, to defend his interests.
The party said that when the case came before Justice Inyang
Ekwo on September 1, Tinubu’s counsel, Omosanya Popoola, indicated that he was
prepared to accept the court processes on the President’s behalf.
Atiku’s lawyers, however, objected to that arrangement,
according to the APC. The issue later led to further steps by Tinubu’s legal team
to obtain the originating processes and formally respond to the case.
Basiru said Olanipekun subsequently wrote the court on
September 10, confirming that Tinubu had authorised his legal team to collect
the originating processes and obtain certified true copies of the documents.
The APC said Tinubu’s lawyers obtained and paid for the
certified copies on September 11 before filing a preliminary objection on
September 14 and a substantive defence with a written address on September 15.
According to Basiru, copies of the preliminary objection and
defence were served on Atiku’s lawyers on September 14 and 15 respectively,
with the plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledging receipt of both sets of documents.
The party therefore questioned why Atiku’s counsel returned to
court on September 16 with an ex parte application seeking substituted service
through the APC, despite the earlier exchange of documents.
The APC accused the application of failing to disclose to
Justice Ekwo that Tinubu had already received the processes through his lawyers
and had filed his defence.
It also argued that the party has no legal authority to
receive court processes on behalf of the President, making service through its
national secretariat legally inappropriate.
In its letter to the Deputy Chief Registrar and Court 6, the
APC described the application as unnecessary and misleading, and warned against
using judicial processes for media publicity or public harassment.
The court had earlier granted Atiku’s request for
substituted service after his lawyers said efforts to personally serve Tinubu
with the originating summons had been unsuccessful. Justice Ekwo subsequently
adjourned the case to September 28.
Post a Comment