The legal challenge instituted by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election suffered a fresh procedural setback on Tuesday as the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned the matter over issues concerning the service of court processes.
The suit, which seeks to prevent Tinubu from contesting the 2027 presidential election, is centred on an alleged discrepancy in the name contained in a National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate reportedly submitted by the President to the Independent National Electoral Commission.
At the resumed proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs, Joseph Onu, informed the court that he had been unable to personally serve the originating summons on the President.
Onu indicated that the plaintiffs intended to have the process personally served on Tinubu or, where necessary, through substituted service in accordance with the applicable rules of the court.
The service issue subsequently generated a disagreement when counsel representing the President attempted to receive the originating summons on his behalf.
However, Onu declined to hand over the process, insisting that the President should either be personally served or served through a procedure authorised by the court.
Justice Inyang Ekwo, who presided over the proceedings, consequently adjourned the matter until September 28 for further mention.
The adjournment means that the court has not yet proceeded to determine the substantive issues raised in the suit, with the immediate focus remaining on whether the originating summons has been properly served on the President.
The substantive challenge revolves around an alleged difference between the name contained in the disputed NYSC certificate and the name by which the President is officially known.
The plaintiffs are questioning a certificate said to bear the name, “Tinubu Bola Adekunle,” while the President is officially known as “Bola Ahmed Tinubu.”
They are asking the court to determine whether the alleged discrepancy has any constitutional or legal implications for Tinubu’s qualification to contest the 2027 presidential election.
The suit is coming as political activities intensify ahead of the 2027 general election, with Tinubu seeking re-election on the platform of the All Progressives Congress, while Atiku is pursuing his presidential ambition under the African Democratic Congress.
The legal action has consequently added a judicial dimension to the political contest between the two politicians, who were among the major contenders in the 2023 presidential election won by Tinubu.
With the matter adjourned, the court is yet to determine the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or make any pronouncement on Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 election.
The procedural question of service must first be resolved before the substantive claims can progress.
The case is expected to return before Justice Ekwo on September 28 for further proceedings.
The development comes against the backdrop of heightened political realignments, coalition-building and legal manoeuvring ahead of the 2027 elections, as opposition political forces intensify efforts to challenge the ruling APC.
Meanwhile, former presidential aide and broadcaster Reuben Abati had recently weighed in on another issue involving the President, criticising concerns raised by the Atiku camp over Tinubu’s decision to embark on a three-week working vacation outside the country.
Abati argued that the President was constitutionally entitled to travel without necessarily transferring power, provided the circumstances and duration of his absence remained within the constitutional framework.
He, however, raised a separate concern over the reported situation in which both the President and Vice President Kashim Shettima were outside the country around the same period, arguing that questions relating to presidential succession deserved closer attention.
The latest court development has further heightened the legal and political exchanges surrounding the 2027 presidential contest, although the Federal High Court is yet to consider the substantive claims challenging Tinubu’s eligibility.
Until the court determines the case, the allegations contained in the suit remain matters for judicial determination.
