Atiku’s Tinubu Eligibility Suit Hits Procedural Hurdle as Lawyers Clash Over Service

The Service Dispute

A Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned proceedings in a suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election after lawyers disagreed over how the court processes should be served on the President.

The suit was filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) against President Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

At Tuesday’s proceedings, Atiku’s lawyer, Joseph Onu, told the court that attempts to personally serve President Tinubu had been unsuccessful. He consequently sought permission to serve the originating processes through substituted means.

But counsel for President Tinubu, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, offered to receive the originating summons on the President’s behalf and deliver it to him.

Mr Onu declined the proposal, asking instead for a written undertaking confirming that Mr Popoola had the President’s authority to accept the process on his behalf.

With the lawyers unable to agree on the point, Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the matter until September 28 to allow the plaintiffs to regularise service on the President.

A Procedural Fight Before the Substantive Battle

The disagreement is procedural, but it has temporarily taken centre stage over the much larger constitutional questions raised by the suit.

Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to determine whether President Tinubu is qualified to contest the 2027 presidential election, relying partly on allegations concerning an NYSC discharge certificate said to bear the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” rather than “Bola Ahmed Tinubu.”

The plaintiffs allege that the disputed certificate was submitted to INEC and question both its authenticity and its connection to the President.

They are relying, among other provisions, on Section 137(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides for disqualification where a person presents a forged certificate to INEC.

The suit also raises questions about provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 which the plaintiffs argue restrict when and how a candidate’s qualification may be challenged before an election. They contend that statutory provisions cannot override an express constitutional requirement.

None of those substantive questions has been determined by the court.

For now, the immediate issue is whether the President has been properly served with the case before the court can move into the larger constitutional dispute.

Why the Procedure Matters

The latest development offers a reminder that major constitutional disputes can turn first on seemingly technical questions of procedure.

Service of originating processes is the mechanism through which a defendant is formally notified of proceedings and brought properly before the court. Until that procedural requirement is satisfactorily addressed, the substantive arguments in a case may remain on hold.

That is particularly significant in a suit involving presidential eligibility, where the legal questions have implications beyond the parties before the court.

For Atiku and the ADC, the September 28 date now provides another opportunity to regularise the proceedings and move the case toward its substantive questions. For the President and the other defendants, the service issue provides an early procedural point before they are required to confront the wider claims advanced by the plaintiffs.

The eventual hearing will therefore test more than the allegations surrounding the disputed certificate. It may also clarify how the courts approach pre-election challenges brought under the constitutional and electoral framework now in force.

For now, however, the eligibility question remains exactly that: a question before the court, not a judicial finding.