The All Progressives Congress has written to the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that an order for substituted service granted against President Bola Tinubu in the suit filed by Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) challenging his eligibility for the 2027 election was unnecessary, insisting the President's lawyers had already filed and served his defence before the order was made.

In a letter dated September 22, 2026, addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court for the attention of the Registrar of Court 6, presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwo, the party said it only learnt of the order "through the media propaganda embarked on by the plaintiffs immediately after the order was made," stressing that "the plaintiffs have not served any Enrolled Order on the APC up to this moment."

The letter, signed by the party's National Secretary, Ajibola Basiru, relates to Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, in which Atiku and the ADC are seeking to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential race, principally over a discrepancy between the name on a National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to INEC and the President's official name.

The order being contested by the APC was made on September 16, 2026, permitting the plaintiffs to serve court processes on the President through the party's national secretariat, after direct service had proved difficult. The party said that while it respects all courts and their orders, it felt "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, GCFR."

In a six-point chronology, Basiru laid out how the case had progressed. According to him, the suit was filed against Tinubu, the APC and INEC in August 2026, after which Atiku "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."

The party said the plaintiffs served the second and third defendants but "for rsons best known to them, refused or failed to serve" Tinubu, who briefed a legal team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) upon learning of the suit through media reports.

The matter first came up on September 1, 2026, when Tinubu's lawyer, Omosanya Popoola (SAN), offered to accept service on the President's behalf, an offer the plaintiffs' counsel declined, prompting an adjournment to September 28 for mention. On further instruction from Tinubu, Olanipekun formally wrote the court on September 10, stating that his legal team had been instructed to obtain certified true copies of the originating processes and file a defence immediately afterward.

According to the letter, the team obtained and paid for the certified copies on September 11, filed a preliminary objection on September 14, and followed with a full defence, including a written address, the next day. Both filings, the party said, were served on the plaintiffs' counsel and duly acknowledged.

Against that backdrop, the APC said it found it "curious" that the plaintiffs' counsel moved the application for substituted service on September 16 without drawing the court's attention to these facts, particularly that Tinubu's defence had already been filed and served. The party further stated it does not have Tinubu's "consent or authority... to receive any processes in this matter on his behalf," noting the President has his own choice of counsel representing him — a fact it said was already known to the plaintiffs' lawyers.

of fur