A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has cautioned lawyers involved in the suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election against discussing the matter in the media or on social media.
Justice Inyang Ekwo issued the warning on Tuesday while presiding over the case filed by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The plaintiffs are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu from the 2027 presidential race over allegations that he submitted a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Justice Ekwo stressed that arguments relating to the suit should be confined strictly to the courtroom. “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 counsel against allowing discussions about the case to continue online. “If this case is discussed on social media, I will hold counsel for the party responsible, and I will take very drastic action.”
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, lists President Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC as defendants.
During the proceedings, Omosanya Popoola appeared as counsel representing President Tinubu.
However, counsel to Atiku, Joseph Onu, informed the court that the plaintiffs had yet to serve the President with the originating court processes.
Onu asked the court to permit personal service on Tinubu or, in the alternative, grant leave for substituted service, citing the importance of the matter.
INEC’s counsel, Alex Iziyon, opposed the request, arguing that there was no need for personal service since Tinubu’s legal representative had already appeared before the court.
He maintained that the President was clearly aware of the suit and urged the court to expedite proceedings, noting that over 17 days had elapsed since the case was filed.
Iziyon added that INEC was ready to file its defence within 10 days.
Justice Ekwo declined to direct the plaintiffs on how they should prosecute their case, stating that it was not the responsibility of the court to determine their preferred mode of service.
The judge subsequently adjourned the matter until September 28, 2026, for mention.
