The All Progressives Congress (APC) has rejected an order of the Federal High Court, Abuja, directing substituted service of court processes on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu through the party, arguing that the process was unnecessary because the President had already filed his defence in the suit.

The party made its position known in a letter dated September 22, 2026, addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, and for the attention of the Registrar of Court 6, presided over by Justice I.E. Ekwo.
The letter relates to Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, instituted by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and another against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The APC said it became aware through media reports of an order made by Justice Ekwo on September 16 directing substituted service on Tinubu through the party, but said it had not been served with an enrolled copy of the order.

The party said that while it respects the authority of the courts and their orders, it was necessary to draw the court’s attention to what it described as relevant facts concerning service of the originating processes.

According to the APC, the plaintiffs served the second and third defendants—the party and INEC—but initially failed to serve Tinubu, the first defendant.
It said Tinubu became aware of the suit through media reports and subsequently briefed a legal team led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, to represent his interests.

The party said that when the matter came up on September 1, one of Tinubu’s counsel, Mr Omosanya Popoola, SAN, appeared before the court and indicated his readiness to accept service on behalf of the President, having obtained his instructions to do so.

However, counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the request, prompting the court to adjourn the matter to September 28 for mention, the APC said.

It further stated that Olanipekun formally wrote the court on September 10, informing it that Tinubu had instructed his legal team to collect the originating processes and obtain certified true copies to enable him prepare his defence.

According to the APC, the President’s legal team obtained and paid for certified true copies of the processes on September 11.

It said Tinubu’s counsel subsequently filed a preliminary objection on September 14 and a defence, accompanied by a comprehensive written address, on September 15.

The documents, the party said, were served on the plaintiffs’ counsel, whose office acknowledged receipt on September 14 and 15 respectively.

The APC therefore argued that when the plaintiffs’ counsel moved the application for substituted service on September 16, the court’s attention was not drawn to the fact that Tinubu had already filed and served his defence.

The party also said it had neither the consent nor authority of Tinubu to receive court processes on his behalf because the President had engaged lawyers of his choice to represent him.
“The APC does not have the consent or authority of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, to receive any processes in this matter on his behalf,” the letter stated.

The APC maintained that the ex parte application for substituted service was unnecessary given the steps already taken by the President and the other defendants in the case.

It said both the APC and Tinubu had filed their respective defences and were ready to prosecute the matter before the court.
The party urged the court to take the circumstances into account, while reiterating its respect for the judiciary and the judicial process.