The suit instituted by former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress in the 2027 general elections, Atiku Abubakar against the eligibility of President Bola Tinubu’s participation in next year’s presidential election began on a shaky foot following the inability of the former VP to serve court process on Tinubu as required by law.
At the Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday, the former Vice President through his counsel, Joseph Onu Silas, lamented that he has not been able to reach President Tinubu for personal delivery of the Originating Summons in line with the provisions of the law.
He told Justice Inyang Eden Ekwo that he needed an order of the Court for substituted service for the suit to formally proceed without obstacles.
But a drama ensued when Omosanya Popoola, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, who stood for President Tinubu, announced his decision to accept the court process on behalf of his client.
Popoola SAN urged Justice Ekwo to order Atiku’s lawyer to make the court process available to him in the open court for delivery to Tinubu.
But rather than complying, Atiku’s lawyer insisted that Popoola SAN must make a written undertaking that he has the mandate of Tinubu to represent him before he would deliver the court process to him.
At this point, the Judge, in a bid to resolve the logjam, adjourned the matter to enable Atiku put his house in order.
Attempts by Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, to convince the court to order the service on Tinubu through his lawyer for proceedings to continue did not yield fruitful results.
In the end, Justice Ekwo shifted further mention in the case till September 28.
Recall that Atiku had dragged Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission before the court, praying for the disqualification of the president from the 2027 election on various eligibility grounds.
He had deposed to an affidavit in support of his suit challenging the qualification of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Atiku in the court process, urged the Court to invoke Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026 to determine whether Tinubu can participate in the election,
The three defendants in the suit are Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
Atiku claimed that Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution, provides that a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC, and asked the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from the 2027 presidential election over the NYSC certificate presented to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
In his affidavit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted to INEC an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which, according to him, is different from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The affidavit further alleged that the same NYSC certificate was submitted in connection with the 2027 presidential election and alleged that the document is not a certificate obtained by Tinubu.
Atiku also placed INEC on notice to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
“If the certificate belongs to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, let that be established before the court. If ‘Tinubu Bola Adekunle’ and ‘Bola Ahmed Tinubu’ are one and the same person for the purpose of that certificate, let the evidence establish it. These are questions that deserve answers, not political insults or presidential silence,” he added.
Atiku and the ADC are also challenging provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which restrict who may challenge the qualification of a candidate at pre-election stage and the removal of qualification as a ground for questioning an election as envisaged by Section 139(a)(i) of the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly to make laws allowing the questioning of whether a person elected into the office of President is qualified.
According to Atiku and ADC, the legislation cannot be used to shut the door against enforcement of an express constitutional provision on the ground that where an Act of the National Assembly conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail.
The originating summon asks the Federal High Court to determine whether the statutory restrictions complained of can prevent the plaintiffs from invoking Section 137(1)(j), and ultimately, whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the plaintiffs’ case is established.
The substantive reliefs sought is an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the election on the grounds pleaded by the plaintiffs.
