The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 20 to rule on an application by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) seeking to amend their suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election....
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 20 to rule on an application by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) seeking to amend their suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date on Tuesday after lawyers to Atiku and the ADC, President Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) presented arguments for and against the application.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to grant them leave to amend their originating summons, which alleges that the APC submitted a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate for Tinubu to INEC.
The plaintiffs are seeking an order compelling INEC to remove Tinubu and the APC from the list of candidates and political parties for the 2027 presidential election.
The allegations have been denied by Tinubu and the APC, who maintain that no forged certificate was submitted to the electoral commission.
Tinubu, APC oppose amendment
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Atiku’s counsel, Joseph Silas, told the court that the matter was scheduled for the hearing of the application to amend the originating summons.
Silas said the plaintiffs had filed a reply on points of law after receiving the defendants’ counter-affidavits. He adopted their processes and urged the court to grant the application.
However, Tinubu’s lead counsel, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, opposed the request, arguing that the application was statute-barred and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant it.
Olanipekun said the proposed changes went beyond correcting errors and amounted to filing a new action after the constitutionally prescribed period had expired.
He urged the court to dismiss the application.
APC’s counsel, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, also asked the court to reject the request, relying on the party’s counter-affidavit and written address filed on September 12.
INEC’s counsel, Alex Izinyon, SAN, aligned with the arguments advanced by Tinubu and the APC.
Izinyon said the commission had filed a six-paragraph counter-affidavit, a written address and an exhibit on September 10, adding that an additional legal authority was filed on October 9.
Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned the matter until November 20 for ruling.
Atiku and the ADC filed the substantive suit on August 14 and subsequently submitted a motion on notice on September 10 seeking permission to amend their originating summons.
In their application, the plaintiffs said they had identified errors after filing the suit, particularly in the description of the INEC forms attached to their affidavit.
They said the document had been referred to as Form CF001 instead of the relevant EC9 form, and sought to provide clearer copies of exhibits and set out specific particulars of the alleged fraud.
The plaintiffs also sought to include a written deposition by Atiku and additional paragraphs in the supporting affidavit, maintaining that the proposed amendment would not introduce a new issue or additional relief.
They argued that they were entitled to amend their processes in the interest of justice.
Tinubu, however, opposed the application in a counter-affidavit filed on September 24.
In the affidavit, deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer at Olanipekun’s law firm, the President argued that the proposed amendment would alter the substance of the plaintiffs’ case.
Adoga said the amended processes sought to introduce changes to the questions for determination and the reliefs requested, as well as new documents and paragraphs in the supporting affidavit.
He also argued that the substantive suit was statute-barred because the cause of action arose on July 11, when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC, while the suit was filed on August 14.
According to the President’s legal team, the constitutional deadline for instituting such an action could not be extended through a court practice direction.
Tinubu’s counsel further argued that the attempt to introduce specific particulars of fraud showed that the original originating summons lacked essential details and was therefore incompetent.
The President urged the court to dismiss the application.
In their joint counter-affidavit to the substantive suit, Tinubu and the APC denied submitting a forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
They also denied submitting Form CF001 to the commission for either election, as alleged by the plaintiffs.
The defendants maintained that the NYSC had never denied issuing Tinubu’s discharge certificate at the end of his service year.
They argued that a disclaimer from the institution said to have issued a certificate was required to establish forgery, citing a Supreme Court decision in support of their position.
The President and the APC asked the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the substantive suit, arguing that it was incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute it.
INEC has also challenged the suit, arguing that it is statute-barred, that the plaintiffs lack locus standi and that the action discloses no reasonable cause of action.
The commission further alleged non-compliance with the written deposition requirements under the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026 and challenged the propriety of some of the reliefs sought.
The court’s November 20 ruling will determine whether Atiku and the ADC can amend their originating summons. It will not, by itself, determine the truth of the certificate-forgery allegation or resolve the substantive suit.