Tinubu’s legal team splits as Atiku’s 2027 suit advances

The legal battle over President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election has taken a new turn, with two Senior Advocates of Nigeria filing separate processes in defence of the President.

Former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, and former Nigerian Bar Association President, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, have both entered the Federal High Court proceedings concerning a suit filed by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, seeks Tinubu’s disqualification from the 2027 presidential election over an allegation that a forged National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate was submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission.

Atiku and the ADC are the plaintiffs, while Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress and INEC are listed as the first, second and third defendants.

The development came as the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered that Tinubu be served with the originating processes through the APC within seven days.

Justice Inyang Ekwo granted the order for substituted service after hearing an application moved by Atiku’s lawyer, Olanrewaju Omotayo-Ojo, who appeared in place of Silas Onu.

The order allows the plaintiffs to serve the President through his political party instead of waiting for personal service.

The dispute over representation has, however, added another layer to the case.

Olujinmi, in a counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Tinubu, challenged the competence of Atiku’s action, arguing that the case was filed outside the statutory period.

He also questioned Atiku’s legal standing to challenge documents allegedly submitted by Tinubu as the candidate of another political party.

Olanipekun, who also filed a preliminary objection and counter-affidavit, similarly asked the court to dismiss the suit.

In a September 10 letter to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, Olanipekun said Tinubu had briefed him to lead a team of lawyers defending the President in the matter.

He complained that Tinubu had not personally been served with the originating processes despite being named as the first defendant.

Olanipekun said the President had earlier instructed his legal team to attend proceedings and obtain copies of the processes filed by the plaintiffs.

He said Prince Omosanya Popoola, SAN, appeared in court on Tinubu’s behalf on September 1 and sought to obtain copies of the processes, but the plaintiffs’ lawyers objected.

Olanipekun subsequently asked the court to make the service copy or certified true copies of the originating processes available to his team to enable Tinubu respond to the claims.

The latest substituted-service order has now provided a route for the plaintiffs to formally serve the President.

At the centre of Atiku’s case is an allegation concerning an NYSC discharge certificate which he claims was submitted to INEC in connection with Tinubu’s presidential candidacy.

Atiku alleged in his affidavit that the disputed certificate bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” and questioned its connection with the President.

He is asking the court to determine whether the alleged submission breached constitutional provisions governing qualification for the presidency and, consequently, to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 election.

Tinubu and the APC have denied the allegation.

In a joint counter-affidavit filed in September, they maintained that no forged NYSC certificate was submitted to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential election. They also argued that the NYSC had not denied issuing a discharge certificate to Tinubu.

Olujinmi further argued that an allegation of forgery, being criminal in nature, must meet the applicable standard of proof. He contended that the plaintiffs had not produced evidence from the NYSC disclaiming the disputed certificate.

INEC has also challenged the suit, raising objections including alleged statute-bar, lack of legal standing and failure to meet requirements applicable to pre-election matters.

Meanwhile, Atiku and the ADC have applied to amend parts of their originating processes, citing errors in the description of some INEC forms attached to their case.

The court has fixed September 28 for further proceedings.

The allegation that Tinubu submitted a forged NYSC certificate remains a claim by the plaintiffs and has not been established by the court.