APC Challenges Substituted Service Order in Atiku’s Suit Against Tinubu
The All Progressives Congress (APC) has informed the Federal High Court that the exparte application for substituted service filed by Atiku Abubakar against President Bola Tinubu was unnecessary. The party stated that both President Tinubu and the APC had already filed their defenses and are ready to proceed with the case. This development underscores the APC's stance on what it perceives as an abuse of court processes in the ongoing legal dispute.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) has told the Federal High Court in Abuja that an ex parte application for substituted service on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was unnecessary, arguing that the President had already obtained the court processes and filed his defence.
In a September 22, 2026 letter addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, and signed by National Secretary Senator Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru, the party referred to Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and another plaintiff against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The APC said it became aware of the September 16 order granting substituted service through the party from media reports and had not received an enrolled copy of the order. The party said the suit was instituted in August 2026, with the plaintiffs serving the APC and INEC but failing to serve Tinubu personally.
According to the APC, Tinubu subsequently instructed a legal team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, while his counsel, Omosanya Popoola, SAN, appeared in court on September 1 and indicated that he had instructions to accept service on the President’s behalf, but the plaintiffs’ counsel objected.
The APC further said Olanipekun wrote the court on September 10, after which Tinubu’s legal team obtained certified true copies of the processes on September 11, filed a Preliminary Objection on September 14 and a substantive defence with a written address on September 15, with the plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledging receipt of both filings.
The APC argued that the substituted-service application moved on September 16 did not disclose to the court that Tinubu had already filed and served his defence. The party also maintained that it does not have Tinubu’s consent or authority to receive court processes on his behalf, since he has engaged counsel of his choice to represent him.
While the Federal High Court had granted Atiku’s application to serve Tinubu through the APC after the plaintiffs said they were unable to effect personal service, the APC said both it and Tinubu have now filed their respective defences and are ready to prosecute the case.