2027: Court Adjourns Atiku’s Suit Challenging Tinubu’s Eligibility

The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned until September 28 further proceedings in a suit filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.

The case was stalled on Tuesday after Atiku’s legal team informed the court that it had been unable to personally serve Tinubu with the originating summons.

Atiku’s counsel, Joseph Onu, asked Justice Inyang Ekwo to permit the court documents to be served through substituted means to enable the case to proceed.

However, Tinubu’s lawyer, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, offered to accept the documents on behalf of the President and personally deliver them to him.

Atiku’s counsel rejected the proposal, insisting that Tinubu’s lawyer should provide a written undertaking confirming that he had the President’s authority to receive the court process.

Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Alex Izinyon, who represented the Independent National Electoral Commission, also urged the court to allow service through Tinubu’s legal representative.

The disagreement over the appropriate method of serving the President prevented the court from moving to the substantive issues raised in the suit.

Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned the matter until September 28, giving Atiku’s legal team additional time to regularise the service of the court documents.

Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, instituted the suit against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress and INEC.

One of the major issues raised in the case concerns an NYSC discharge certificate allegedly submitted to INEC in connection with Tinubu’s presidential candidacy.

Atiku alleges that the certificate bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” instead of “Bola Ahmed Tinubu,” arguing that the alleged discrepancy raises questions about the President’s constitutional qualification to contest the 2027 election.

He is asking the court to determine whether the alleged certificate discrepancy and other claims constitute grounds for disqualification under the Constitution and relevant electoral laws.

The plaintiffs are also challenging aspects of the Electoral Act 2026, arguing that statutory provisions cannot override constitutional requirements concerning presidential eligibility.

The allegations remain subject to judicial determination, as the court has not yet commenced substantive hearing on the claims.

The court also cautioned the parties and their lawyers against discussing details of the pending case on social media, stressing that the matter should be addressed through proper judicial proceedings.