Atiku Suit: Substituted Service On Us, Tinubu Unnecessary, APC Tells Court

The All Progressives Congress (APC) has told the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, presided over by Hon. Justice I.E. Ekwo that the exparte application for substituted service filed by the former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and another(Plaintiffs) against President Bola Tinubu was unnecessary.

According to the party, both the APC, and President Tinubu had filed their respective defences to the Plaintiffs’ action, and are ready to prosecute the case accordingly.

APC stated this in letter dated September 22, 2026, signed by its National Secretary, Senator Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru and addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar, Federal High Court, Abuja regarding Suit No:
FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026 between Atiku Abubakar & Anor V. Bola Ahmed Tinubu& Ors.

The party in the letter said it 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,” the letter read in parts.

APC said it knew as a fact and had been further informed by President Tinubu that
the Plaintiffs instituted the action against him and the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) as the 1 st, 2nd and, 3rd defendants, respectively, sometime in August, 2026.

It also noted that 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 1 st 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, CFR, SAN, to represent and defend his interest in the matter.
iii.

“The matter was listed on the cause list on 1st September, 2026, and one of the counsels already briefed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, 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, GCFR, 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, GCFR, his lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, CFR, 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, GCFR has instructed same counsel to file his defence to the Plaintiffs’ action immediately after obtaining the processes/Certified True Copies thereof.

“Based on the above, the 1st Defendant’s counsel formally obtained and paid for Certified True Copies of the processes on 11th September, 2026, following which counsel filed a Preliminary Objection to the processes on 14th September, 2026, and further filed a defence to the action with a
comprehensive written address on 15th September, 2026,” the letter further stated.

It said both the Preliminary Objection and the defence filed by President Tinubu counsel were served on the Plaintiffs’ counsel on 14th and 15th September, 2026 respectively, and his office duly acknowledged receipt of service.

APC said it had noticed that the application for substituted service granted against President Tinubu, through it, was moved on September 16, 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.

The party said it does not have the consent or authority of President Tinubu to receive any processes in the matter on his behalf, as he has engaged the services of counsel of his choice to represent him in the matter.

“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 have filed their respective defences to the Plaintiffs’ action, and are ready to prosecute the case accordingly,” the party added.