2027: Atiku, ADC Move to Amend Suit Challenging Tinubu’s Eligibility
By Nafiu Muhammad Lema
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) have moved to amend their suit challenging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the matter until October 13, 2026, for the hearing of the plaintiffs’ application to amend their originating summons.
During proceedings, counsel to Atiku and the ADC, Joseph Silas, informed the court that all defendants had been served with the necessary processes and that the plaintiffs had responded to their filings.
However, counsel to President Tinubu, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), raised concerns over an earlier dispute involving the service of court documents on the President.
Olanipekun recalled that during the September 1 hearing, counsel for the second defendant, Popoola Owosanya, had offered to receive the documents on Tinubu’s behalf, but the plaintiffs rejected the offer and subsequently sought an order for substituted service.
He accused the plaintiffs of attempting to mislead the court by claiming they had encountered difficulties serving the President.
Justice Ekwo, however, directed the lawyers to concentrate on the proceedings.
Silas subsequently informed the court that the plaintiffs had filed an application to amend their originating summons and had duly notified the defendants.
After confirming that the application had been served on the parties, the judge adjourned the matter until October 13.
The suit filed by Atiku and the ADC primarily concerns an alleged discrepancy between the name appearing on a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Tinubu’s official name.
The allegation remains before the court and has not been judicially determined.
The court had earlier, on September 16, granted the plaintiffs permission to serve Tinubu through the All Progressives Congress (APC), following complaints that attempts at personal service had been unsuccessful.
The APC subsequently challenged the order, arguing that the President’s lawyers had already received the originating processes and filed his defence before the application for substituted service.
Meanwhile, INEC has filed a response questioning the competence of the suit, including the plaintiffs’ legal standing and allegations of abuse of court process.
