A Federal High Court in Abuja has warned lawyers involved in a suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election against discussing the case in the media or on social media.
Justice Inyang Ekwo issued the warning on Tuesday while adjourning proceedings in a suit filed by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The plaintiffs are seeking to disqualify Tinubu from contesting the 2027 election over allegations that he submitted a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Justice Ekwo stressed that the matter should be argued in court rather than through public commentary.
“This case is to be conducted in court and not in the media, whether it is regular or social,” the judge warned.
He further cautioned that any lawyer whose party discusses the case on social media could face serious consequences.
“If this case is discussed on social media, I will hold counsel for the party responsible, and I will take very drastic action,” Ekwo said.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, lists Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC as defendants.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Omosanya Popoola appeared in court as counsel to Tinubu.
However, Joseph Onu, who represented Atiku and the ADC, told the court that the plaintiffs had yet to serve the President with the originating court documents.
Onu said the plaintiffs wanted the documents personally served on Tinubu or, alternatively, sought an order permitting substituted service because of the significance of the case.
Counsel to INEC, Alex Iziyon, urged the court to reject the request for personal service, arguing that Tinubu’s lawyer’s appearance in court indicated that the President was already aware of the proceedings.
Iziyon also urged the court to expedite the hearing, noting that more than 17 days had elapsed since the suit was filed. He said INEC was ready to file its defence within 10 days.
Justice Ekwo, however, said he could not dictate to the plaintiffs how to conduct their case.
The judge subsequently adjourned the matter until September 28 for mention.
Comments