Follow Us on Google
The All Progressives Congress (APC) has written to the Federal High Court, Abuja, challenging the necessity of an order for substituted service against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, insisting he had already filed and served his defence before the order was made.
Background
The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026 was filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and a co-plaintiff in August 2026, naming President Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as first, second and third defendants.
It is one of several post-election legal challenges that have trailed Tinubu’s tenure, with the plaintiffs seeking court intervention against his continued hold on office.
The matter is before Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Abuja division of the Federal High Court.
In a letter dated 22 September 2026, APC National Secretary, Senator Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru, said the party learnt of the 16 September substituted service order only through media reports by the plaintiffs, having not been formally served the enrolled order.
The APC said while INEC and the party itself were served, President Tinubu was not. On learning of the suit through the press, he briefed a legal team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN.
At the 1 September hearing, counsel Omosanya Popoola, SAN, offered to accept service on the President’s behalf, but plaintiffs’ counsel objected; the matter was adjourned to 28 September.
Olanipekun formally wrote the court on 10 September to collect the originating processes.
Other News
His team obtained Certified True Copies on 11 September, filed a Preliminary Objection on 14 September and filed a full defence on 15 September, both served on and acknowledged by plaintiffs’ counsel.
The APC said the plaintiffs’ ex parte application for substituted service, moved on 16 September, did not disclose these facts to the court, particularly that Tinubu’s defence had already been filed and served.
The party stressed it lacks the President’s consent to receive processes on his behalf, noting he had engaged his own counsel, a fact known to the plaintiffs. It described the substituted service order as unnecessary and said both it and President Tinubu are ready to proceed with the case.
Specifically, the APC contended that the plaintiffs’ ex parte application for substituted service, moved on 16 September, did not draw the court’s attention to these developments, particularly the fact that a defence had already been filed and served.
The party also clarified that it has no consent or authority from President Tinubu to receive court processes on his behalf, noting he had already engaged counsel of his own choosing, a fact it said was known to the plaintiffs’ legal team.
The APC described the substituted service application as “unnecessary” in light of the facts and affirmed that both the party and President Tinubu have filed their defences and are ready to proceed with the case.
The letter closed with the APC extending its regards to Justice Ekwo through the court registry.
