Atiku’s Challenge to Tinubu’s 2027 Eligibility Delayed as Court Adjourns Over Service Dispute

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday postponed further proceedings in a suit filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar questioning President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to participate in the 2027 presidential election.

The case could not proceed after Atiku’s legal team informed the court that attempts to personally serve the President with the originating court documents had not been successful.

During the hearing, counsel representing Atiku requested permission to use an alternative method of service to ensure the case moved forward. However, a lawyer appearing for President Tinubu indicated a willingness to receive the documents on the President’s behalf.

The proposal led to disagreements between both legal teams, as Atiku’s counsel sought written confirmation that the President’s lawyer had authority to accept the documents. Efforts to resolve the issue in court were unsuccessful.

Following arguments from both sides, the presiding judge adjourned the matter until September 28, 2026, to allow the claimant’s legal team to regularise the service of the court processes.

The suit, filed by Atiku and the African Democratic Congress, names President Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission as defendants.

At the centre of the dispute is a National Youth Service Corps certificate submitted to the electoral commission. The plaintiffs contend that the document contains a variation in name details and are asking the court to determine whether it meets constitutional requirements for a presidential candidate.

The suit also seeks judicial interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to qualification for elective office and challenges aspects of the Electoral Act 2026 that the plaintiffs argue could limit the ability to contest a candidate’s eligibility before an election.

According to the claimants, questions surrounding the ownership and authenticity of the certificate should be resolved through evidence presented before the court. They further maintain that constitutional provisions should prevail in any situation where there is a conflict with statutory legislation.

In addition to seeking clarification on the relevant legal provisions, the plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the allegations raised against the President could affect his eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.

The case is expected to return before the court later this month for further proceedings.