APC writes to court over Atiku, ADC lawsuit seeking to disqualify Tinubu for 2027 elections

The All Progressives Congress (APC) has written to the Federal High Court in Abuja to inform it of any action taken by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in a lawsuit seeking to disqualify President Bola Tinubu from the 2027 presidential election.

The party noted that the substitute service order granted against Tinubu in the suit filed by Atiku and the ADC was not necessary, as the President’s attorney had already filed and executed a defense before the order was made.

In a letter dated September 22, 2026 addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of Courts for the attention of the Registrar of Courts 6 led by Justice Inyang Ekwo, the party said that it only became aware of the order “through media propaganda carried out by the plaintiff immediately after the order was made.”

He emphasized that the plaintiff “has not served any Registered Order on the APC to date.”

The letter, signed by the party’s National Secretary Ajibola Basiru and distributed to media crew, was written regarding Lawsuit Number FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026.

Atiku and the ADC are seeking to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential election, mainly because of the discrepancy between the name on the National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission and the official name of the president.

The order challenged by the APC was made on September 16, 2026, allowing the plaintiff to pursue court proceedings against the President through the party’s national secretariat, after his direct service proved difficult.

According to the party, while they respect all courts in the country, including all orders made by them, they also feel “an obligation to report to the courts when their processes are used to cruelly harass the public and/or our members, in particular, our party leader, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR.”

Basiru, in a six-point chronology, explained the facts of the development of the case.

According to him, the suit was filed against Tinubu, his party and INEC as first, second and third defendants sometime in August 2026, after which Atiku “spoke to the press after filing the suit and informed the general public that he personally went to the court registry office to rescind his supporting statement.”

The party said that although the plaintiffs served the second and third defendants, they “for reasons best known to them, refused or failed to serve the first defendant,” Tinubu.

They added that the President had briefed the legal team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) to represent his interests, as soon as he became aware of the lawsuit through media reports.

Narrating a series of court appearances, the APC said the matter came up in the cause list on September 1, 2026, when one of Tinubu’s lawyers, Omosanya Popoola (SAN), informed the court of his readiness to accept service on behalf of the President, having been so instructed.

According to Basiru, the plaintiff’s counsel “objected to the harmless request that any plaintiff or litigant would normally gladly accept,” so the court adjourned until September 28, 2026, to mention it.

The party added that upon Tinubu’s further instructions, Olanipekun officially wrote a letter to the court on September 10, 2026, stating that his client had instructed his legal team to collect the preliminary proceedings filed by the plaintiff and obtain a certified copy of the original, and that Tinubu had also directed that his defense be filed immediately after the documents were obtained.

Based on that, the letter said, the President’s lawyers “officially obtained and paid for a Certified Original Copy of the proceeding on September 11, 2026,” after which they filed a preliminary objection to the proceeding on September 14, and followed with a “defense of the action with a comprehensive written address” the following day, September 15.

Both the initial objection and defense, the party said, were served on plaintiffs’ counsel on September 14 and 15, respectively, “and his office acknowledged receipt of service.”

It is against this backdrop, the APC said, that it finds it strange that the application for substituted service was moved on September 16 by the plaintiff’s attorney “and the court’s attention was not drawn to the above facts, particularly that the first defendant’s defense in the suit had already been filed and served on the plaintiff’s attorney.”

The party further told the court that they did not have “consent or authority… to accept any process in this matter on behalf of Tinubu,” and noted that the President had his own legal counsel representing him in the suit, a fact the plaintiffs’ lawyers said were already known.

“For the above reasons, the APC wishes to inform the court that the ex parte application for substituted service filed by the plaintiff is unnecessary, in view of the above-mentioned facts,” the letter said, adding that both the parties and Tinubu “have filed their respective defenses to the plaintiff’s claim, and are prepared to prosecute the case accordingly.”