The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday issued an order for President Bola Tinubu to be served, within seven days, with the suit seeking to stop him from contesting the 2027 presidential election over his alleged submission of forged certificates to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The court, in a ruling delivered by Justice Inyang Ekwo, approved substituted service of the legal process on President Tinubu through his political party, the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Justice Ekwo made the order after hearing a motion moved by Atiku’s lawyer, Mr. Olanrewaju Omotayo-Ojo, who stood in for Mr. Silas Onu, said to be bereaved.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was brought before the court by a former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

While the ADC was joined as the 2nd plaintiff, President Tinubu, the APC, and INEC were listed as the 1st to 3rd defendants, respectively.

Specifically, Atiku, in a 25-paragraph affidavit he personally deposed to in support of the suit, alleged that President Tinubu submitted a bogus National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to INEC in support of his qualification for the presidential seat.

Insisting that President Tinubu gave false information about himself in the Form CF0001 he submitted to INEC, the plaintiffs drew the court’s attention to the fact that the NYSC certificate he submitted to the electoral body bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle.”

“I know that the NYSC certificate is clearly not one obtained by the 1st defendant, as it belongs to one Adekunle.

“The said NYSC certificate, bearing the name Tinubu Bola Adekunle, is herein attached and marked as Exhibit P2.

“I know that the said NYSC certificate is still in existence and in the custody of the 3rd defendant (INEC), and that it is a forgery, as the 1st defendant’s name is not Adekunle, and yet he submitted it to the 3rd defendant to be acted upon as genuine,” Atiku averred.

He told the court that Tinubu had been parading the forged certificate since 1999, when he contested the Lagos State governorship election.

Atiku therefore urged the court, among others, to determine: “Whether, in view of the limitations in section 138(1)(a) & (b) of the Electoral Act, 2026, and section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), the Plaintiffs will not be allowed to enforce the binding provision of section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), which applies, mutatis mutandis, to all candidates aspiring to the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

As well as: “Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants should be disqualified for presenting a forged NYSC certificate to the 3rd Defendant for the 2023 and 2027 Presidential Elections, in breach of section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended).”

Upon a positive determination of the legal questions, the plaintiffs sought a “declaration that the 1st Defendant presented a forged certificate to the 3rd Defendant when he contested for Governor of Lagos State in 1999, and thereby breached the provision of section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended).”

Likewise: “An order disqualifying the 1st and 2nd Defendants from participating in the 2027 Presidential Election, for presenting a forged certificate to the 3rd Defendant when the 1st Defendant contested for Governor of Lagos State in 1999.”

The court had earlier slated September 28 to commence full-blown hearing of the case.

The INEC has since filed processes challenging the competence of the suit, which it urged the court to dismiss.

However, it appears two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) may be on a collision course over who was briefed to represent President Tinubu in the matter.

Even though the plaintiffs had insisted on effecting personal service of the suit on President Tinubu, a former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, and a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, have separately filed processes for the 1st defendant.

The two senior lawyers separately challenged the competence of the suit and Atiku’s locus standi (legal right) to query the credentials Tinubu submitted to INEC, citing provisions of Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2026.

In a counter-affidavit filed on Tinubu’s behalf, Chief Olujinmi, SAN, contended that Atiku’s case had become statute-barred, noting that the certificates were submitted to INEC before August 1 and the 14-day period allowed for such litigation had elapsed.

Besides, he argued that Atiku, being a member of the ADC, has no legal right to challenge what was done by the APC.

Likewise, Chief Olanipekun, SAN, who also identified himself as Tinubu’s lawyer, filed both a preliminary objection and a counter-affidavit seeking dismissal of the suit, which he maintained is incompetent and a gross abuse of court process.

In a letter dated September 10, addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court, Chief Olanipekun, SAN, said he had been briefed by President Tinubu to lead a team of counsel to represent and defend his interests in the matter.

The letter, a copy of which was sighted by Vanguard on Wednesday, read in part:

“On or about 14th August, 2026, the public was inundated with news reports of not just the filing of the action, but also narratives of the issues purportedly submitted for the court’s consideration by the plaintiffs.

“Despite this, our client has not been served with the originating processes till date. When our client got wind that the matter would be coming up for mention before the Honourable Court on 1st September, 2026, he instructed us to appear for him, pursuant to which a member of his legal team, Prince Omosanya Popoola, SAN, appeared in court, not only to represent him, but also to collect the processes filed by the plaintiffs on his behalf, as per his instruction.

“The appearance of Prince Omosanya Popoola, SAN, on the said day is on the court’s record. Surprisingly, the plaintiffs’ counsel objected to this harmless but very reasonable application by counsel to collect the processes in open court.

“To date, our client remains the only party that has not been served with the originating processes. Further to the foregoing, we hereby (on our client’s instruction) formally apply that the court provide us with either the service copy (of the originating processes) meant for our client or a certified true copy of the said originating processes, to enable the immediate filing of his response to the plaintiffs’ suit.

“This is not only in furtherance of his right to a fair hearing, but also in demonstration of the fact that our client has nothing to hide.

“Kindly bring this letter to the urgent attention of the Honourable Presiding Judge.

“We undertake to pay the necessary fees for the certified true copies,” the letter added.

The plaintiffs have also applied to be allowed to effect some amendments to the suit, especially to change the name of the INEC form that President Tinubu allegedly attached the forged certificates to, which was wrongly referred to as Form CF001 instead of Form EC9. ( Vanguard)