The suit filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar before a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja against the eligibility of President Bola Tinubu to participate in the 2027 Presidential election on Tuesday, suffered a set back following the inability of Atiku to serve Court process on Tinubu as required by law.
When the matter was called on Tuesday, Counsel to the former Vice President, Joseph Onu Silas lamented that he has not been able to reach President Tinubu for personal delivery of Originating Summons on him in line with the provisions of the law.
He told the trial judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo that he needed an order of the Court for a substituted service for the suit to be formally served of President Tinubu without obstacles.
Drama however erupted when Omosanya Popoola, SAN who stood for President Tinubu announced his decision to accept Court process on behalf of his client, urging Justice Ekwo to order Atiku’s lawyer to make the Court process available to him in the open Court for delivery to Tinubu.
However, rather than complying, Atiku’s lawyer insisted that Popoola must make a written undertaking that he has the mandate of Tinubu to represent him before he would deliver the Court process to him.
At this point, the Judge in the bid to resolve the logjam resolved to adjourn the matter to enable Atiku put his house in order.
Attempt by counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN to convince the Court to order the service of Court process on Tinubu through his lawyer for proceedings to continue did not yield any fruitful result.
In the end, Justice Ekwo shifted further mention in the case till September 28.
It would be recalled that, Atiku dragged Tinubu, All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC to Court praying for the disqualification of President Tinubu from contesting the 2027 presidential election on various grounds of eligibility.
Atiku Abubakar, who is the Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), had deposed to an affidavit in support of his suit challenging the qualification of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Atiku in the suit which has Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC as defendants wants the Court to invoke Sections 137(1)(j), 139(1)(a)(i) and 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026 to determine whether Tinubu can participate in the election,
Atiku claimed that Section 137(1)(j) of the Constitution, provides that a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if he has presented a forged certificate to INEC, and asked the court to determine whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from the 2027 presidential election over the NYSC certificate presented to INEC in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections.
In his affidavit, Atiku alleged that Tinubu submitted to INEC an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which, according to him, is different from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The affidavit further alleged that the same NYSC certificate was submitted in connection with the 2027 presidential election and alleged that the document is not a certificate obtained by Tinubu.
Atiku also placed INEC on notice to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001 submitted in connection with the 2023 and 2027 presidential elections adding that, “If the certificate belongs to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, let that be established before the court. If ‘Tinubu Bola Adekunle’ and ‘Bola Ahmed Tinubu’ are one and the same person for the purpose of that certificate, let the evidence establish it. These are questions that deserve answers, not political insults or presidential silence”.
Atiku and the ADC are also challenging provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which restrict who may challenge the qualification of a candidate at pre-election stage and the removal of qualification as a ground for questioning an election as envisaged by Section 139(a)(i) of the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly to make laws allowing the questioning of whether a person elected into the office of President is qualified.
According to Atiku and ADC, the legislation cannot be used to shut the door against enforcement of an express constitutional provision on the ground that where an Act of the National Assembly conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail.
The originating summons asks the Federal High Court to determine whether the statutory restrictions complained of can prevent the plaintiffs from invoking Section 137(1)(j), and ultimately whether Tinubu and the APC should be disqualified from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the plaintiffs’ case is established.
The substantive relief sought is an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the election on the grounds pleaded by the plaintiffs.
Counsel to Atiku and ADC are Edwin Inegedu, SAN, and Joseph Onu Silas.
END
Comments