Atiku’s suit: APC kicks against substituted order on Tinubu

By Jude Opara

The All Progressives Congress (APC) has rejected the leave for a substituted order on President Bola Tinubu and others, allegedly granted by Justice I.E Ekwo of the Federal High Court Abuja, in the Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026 between Atiku Abubakar and ANOR vs Bola Tinubu and ORS.

In the petition signed by the National Secretary of the APC, Sen. Ajibola Basiru, said the party was surprised at the Order granted on the 16th September, 2026, for substituted service on President Tinubu, through the party.

Basiru said the APC only became aware of the Order through the “media propaganda” allegedly embarked on by the Plaintiffs immediately after the said Order was made.

“The APC became aware of the Order through the media propaganda embarked on by the Plaintiffs immediately after the Order was made, although the Plaintiffs have not served any Enrolled Order the APC up till this moment.

“As a responsible and law abiding political Party, the APC respects all Courts in the country inclusive of all Orders made by them, as a corollary to this, the APC is also under a duty to bring it to the attention of the Court when its processes are being abusively employed to harass the public and or any of our members, particularly, the Leader of our Party, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu”.

However, the National Secretary added that the APC also knows that the Plaintiffs instituted the action against the President and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as first and second respondents.

Basiru added that President Tinubu only got to know about the suit through the media and immediately assembled his lawyers to represent him in court. However according to him, the lawyers of the Plaintiffs objected to that surprisingly.

“Sometime in August, 2026, and the 1st Plaintiff in particular addressed the press after filing the action and informed the general public that he personally went to the registry of the Court to depose to the supporting affidavit to his Originating Summons.

“While the Plaintiffs served the 2nd and 3rd defendants, they for reasons best known to them, refused or failed to serve the 1st defendant. Immediately after becoming aware of the institution of the action against him through the press, the 1st defendant briefed his team under the leadership of Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, to represent and defend his interest in the matter.

“The matter was listed on the cause list on 1st September, 2026, and one of the counsels already briefed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Mr. Omosanya Popoola, SAN with other counsel appeared for him. He informed the Court of his readiness to accept service of the processes on behalf of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, having obtained his instruction to so do, but counsel to the Plaintiffs objected to the harmless request which ordinarily, the Plaintiffs or any Plaintiff should have gladly accepted. The matter was then adjourned to 28th September, 2026, for mention.

“On the further instruction of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, his lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, formally wrote the Court on 10th September, 2026, to the effect that the first Defendant has instructed him/his legal team to collect the originating processes filed by the Plaintiffs on his behalf, and also obtain Certified True Copies of same. The Court was also informed that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has instructed same counsel to file his defence to the Plaintiffs’ action immediately after obtaining the processes/Certified True Copies thereof”.

The APC scribe added that the counsel to President Tinubu had on the 14th September filed a preliminary objection to the processes.with a comprehensive written address on the 15th, September, and also served on the Plaintiffs counsel.

He stated that there was no need for the Order of substituted service, given that the counsel to the first defendant has filed his defence to the Plaintiffs action.

“Both the Preliminary Objection and the defence filed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR’s counsel were served on the Plaintiffs’ counsel on 14th and 15th September, 2026 respectively, and his office duly acknowledged receipt of service.

“The APC have noticed that the application for substituted service granted against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, through it, was moved on 16th September, 2026, by the counsel representing the Plaintiffs, and the attention of the Court was not drawn to the above facts, particularly that the 1st Defendant’s defence in the action had been filed and served on the Plaintiffs’ counsel.

“In addition, the APC does not have the consent or authority of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, to receive any processes in this matter on his behalf, as he has engaged the services of counsel of his choice to represent him in the matter. This fact is known to the Plaintiffs’ counsel.

“It is for the foregoing reasons that the APC wishes to inform the Court that the exparte application for substituted service filed by the Plaintiffs was unnecessary given the trajectory of the facts stated above. Both the APC, and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, have filed their respective defences to the Plaintiffs’ action, and are ready to prosecute the case accordingly”, Basiru concluded.