The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 20 to rule on an application by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar to amend his suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date on Tuesday after lawyers representing Atiku, Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission presented their arguments for and against the application.
Atiku and the African Democratic Congress, in the substantive suit, are seeking to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential election over allegations concerning the President’s National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to INEC.
The plaintiffs alleged that the APC submitted a forged NYSC certificate to the electoral commission. They are asking the court to compel INEC to remove Tinubu and the party from the list of candidates and political parties for the election.
The defendants have denied the allegations and challenged the competence of the suit.
Tinubu, APC and INEC oppose amendment
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Atiku’s counsel, Joseph Silas, told the court that the application to amend the originating summons was dated September 4 and filed on September 10.
Silas said the plaintiffs 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 counsel, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought.
Olanipekun maintained that Atiku’s application was statute-barred and amounted to an attempt to introduce a new action rather than amend the existing suit.
APC’s counsel, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, also urged the court to reject the application, while INEC’s lawyer, Alex Izinyon, SAN, aligned himself with the arguments presented by the other defendants.
After listening to the parties, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until November 20 for ruling.
Dispute over alleged certificate forgery
In their response to the substantive suit, Tinubu and the APC urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing that it was incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute it.
They denied submitting a forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
Through the APC’s Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, they also maintained that they had not submitted Form CF001 to INEC for either election, as alleged by the plaintiffs.
They argued that the NYSC had never denied issuing Tinubu’s discharge certificate at the end of his service year. They further contended that a claim of certificate forgery should be supported by a disclaimer from the institution said to have issued the document.
INEC also challenged the suit through a preliminary objection filed by its counsel. The commission argued that the action was statute-barred, that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi and that the case disclosed no reasonable cause of action and amounted to an abuse of court process.
The commission also alleged that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the written deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026. It asked the court to dismiss the suit.
Why Atiku wants to amend the suit
Atiku and the ADC filed their motion seeking leave to amend the originating summons after identifying what they described as errors and omissions in their initial court documents.
They said the suit was filed on August 14 and that they later discovered errors in the names of forms referenced in their affidavit, including the use of Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A.
The plaintiffs also said they needed to specify the particulars of the alleged fraud, provide Atiku’s written deposition and attach clearer copies of exhibits that were unavailable when they initially filed the case.
They argued that the proposed amendments would not introduce new issues or additional prayers and should be allowed in the interest of justice.
Tinubu opposed the application in a counter-affidavit filed on September 24. The document was deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in the law firm of his lead counsel, Olanipekun.
Adoga argued that the proposed amendments went beyond correcting errors in the description of documents, alleging that Atiku sought to alter the questions for determination, introduce new paragraphs and add a relief that was absent from the original suit.
He also argued that the substantive case was statute-barred because the plaintiffs filed it on August 14, while the cause of action they challenged arose on July 11, when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC. He noted that the commission published the particulars of presidential candidates and their submitted certificates on August 1.
Adoga maintained that the constitutional deadline for filing a pre-election case could not be extended through a practice direction and argued that an incompetent originating process could not be amended after the prescribed period had expired.
He urged the court to dismiss the application.
INEC also opposed the amendment, arguing that the proposed changes could introduce a fresh cause of action or attempt to cure a jurisdictional defect after the 14-day period prescribed by Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The court is expected to determine on November 20 whether Atiku and the ADC can amend their originating summons. The ruling will address the amendment application, not necessarily the substantive allegations against Tinubu and the APC.