Court Postpones Atiku’s Suit Challenging Tinubu Eligibility To Sept 28

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Tuesday, postponed the suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s participation in the 2027 Presidential election to September 28, 2026.

The suit was instituted by the former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar

Counsel to the former Vice President, Joseph Onu Silas, lamented that he has not been able to reach President Tinubu for personal delivery of Originating Summons on him in line with the provisions of the law.

Daily Trust reports that Atiku had dragged Tinubu, who is the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the Court, praying for Tinubu’s disqualification from the 2027 presidential election on various eligibility grounds.

Atiku, who is the Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress ADC), had deposed to an affidavit in support of his suit challenging the qualification of Tinubu to contest the 2027 presidential election.

The opposition politician in the Court process, is urging 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 APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC.

Atiku pointed out 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 allegeed 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.”

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 summons 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.

Counsel to ADC and Atiku are Edwin Inegedu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Joseph Onu Silas respectively.

When the proceedings came up on Tuesday, Silas told Justice Inyang Ekwo that he needed an order of the Court for a substituted service for the suit to formally proceed without obstacles.

Drama, however, erupted when Omosanya Popoola, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who stood for President Tinubu, announced his decision to accept Court process on behalf of his client.

Popoola urged Justice Ekwo to order Atiku’s lawyer to make the Court process available to him in the open Court for delivery to Tinubu.

However, rather than complying, Atiku’s lawyer insisted that Popoola 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 the bid to resolve the logjam resolved to adjourn the matter to enable Atiku put his house in order.

Attempts by Alex Izinyon, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, to convince the Court to order the service of Court process on Tinubu through his lawyer for proceedings to continue did not yield fruitful results.

At the end of the proceedings, Justice Ekwo postponed the suit for further mention on September 28.