Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) are set to amend their suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
The development is coming as the legal battle over Tinubu’s eligibility continues at the Federal High Court in Abuja, where Atiku and the ADC are seeking to disqualify the President and the All Progressives Congress (APC) from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, also has the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as a defendant. Atiku and the ADC are challenging Tinubu’s qualification principally over an alleged discrepancy involving a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to INEC.
Atiku, who is the ADC’s presidential candidate for the 2027 election, is relying on provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, as well as relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2026. The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether Tinubu meets the constitutional requirements to contest the presidential election.
A key issue raised in the suit concerns the NYSC certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” rather than “Bola Ahmed Tinubu.” Atiku and the ADC want the court to determine the authenticity and legal implications of the document and whether its submission to INEC amounts to the presentation of a forged certificate under the Constitution.
The plaintiffs are also challenging provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, arguing that the legislation cannot restrict constitutional provisions relating to the qualification of presidential candidates.
The legal proceedings have already encountered procedural issues. In September, Atiku’s legal team sought permission to serve Tinubu with the court processes through substituted service after difficulties in effecting personal service on the President.
Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court subsequently granted an application allowing the processes to be served on Tinubu through the APC. The court later adjourned the matter to September 28, 2026, for further mention.
However, the APC has challenged aspects of the substituted-service process, arguing that Tinubu’s legal representatives had already obtained the court documents and filed both a preliminary objection and a defence before the substituted-service order was made.
The party stated that Tinubu’s lawyers had obtained certified copies of the originating processes, filed a preliminary objection and subsequently filed a defence to the action. The APC therefore questioned the necessity of the substituted-service order.
Tinubu’s legal team has also challenged the substance and competence of Atiku’s case. In its preliminary objection, the President’s counsel argued that the allegation of forgery is a criminal allegation that must meet the applicable evidentiary standard.
The legal team further argued that Atiku and the ADC had not produced evidence from the NYSC disclaiming the issuance of the certificate in question. INEC has similarly filed a preliminary objection, raising issues including the competence of the suit, limitation, locus standi and compliance with the Federal High Court’s pre-election practice requirements.
With the proposed amendment, the case is expected to proceed with the parties addressing the outstanding legal and procedural issues before the court.
The suit remains pending before the Federal High Court, and the allegations contained in Atiku and the ADC’s case are yet to be determined by the court. Likewise, Tinubu, the APC and INEC’s objections remain subject to judicial determination.
Make the legal report more conciseUse more neutral legal wording