The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 20 to rule on former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar’s application to amend his suit seeking the disqualification of President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress, APC, from the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date on Tuesday after lawyers to Atiku, Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission adopted their processes and presented arguments for and against the application.
Atiku, the African Democratic Congress presidential candidate, and his party instituted the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, challenging the National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate Tinubu submitted to INEC.
The plaintiffs alleged that the APC submitted a forged NYSC certificate on Tinubu’s behalf. They asked the court to compel INEC to remove the president and the party from the list of candidates and political parties for the 2027 presidential election.
Atiku and the ADC filed the suit on August 14 and later sought permission to amend their originating summons after identifying what they described as errors and omissions in their initial filings.
Moving the application on Tuesday, their counsel, Joseph Silas, said the motion was dated September 4 and filed on September 10.
Silas explained that the proposed amendments included correcting the nomenclature of electoral forms, specifying the particulars of the alleged fraud, adding Atiku’s written deposition and attaching clearer copies of relevant exhibits.
He maintained that the amendments would not introduce new issues or additional prayers and urged the court to grant the application.
However, Wole Olanipekun, counsel to Tinubu, urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing that the suit was statute-barred and that the proposed changes went beyond correcting errors.
Olanipekun said the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the application because the plaintiffs were attempting to introduce a new action through an amendment.
APC’s counsel, Akin Olujinmi, also opposed the application and asked the court to dismiss it. INEC’s counsel, Alex Izinyon, supported the arguments advanced by the president’s lawyer and the APC.
Izinyon said INEC had filed a counter-affidavit, a written address and an exhibit in opposition to the application. He also referred to an additional authority filed by the commission on October 9.
Also Read: Atiku seeks to amend suit against President Tinubu, APC
In its response 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 argued that the NYSC had never denied issuing Tinubu’s discharge certificate. Their joint counter-affidavit maintained that a disclaimer from the institution said to have issued a certificate was required to establish forgery.
The president and the APC further urged the court to dismiss the substantive suit, arguing that it was incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the action.
INEC also challenged the suit, citing alleged non-compliance with pres-election procedures, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action, abuse of court process and the expiration of the constitutionally prescribed time limit.
In opposing the amendment, Tinubu’s litigation support officer, Moses Adoga, argued in a counter-affidavit that the proposed changes would alter the plaintiffs’ case.
Adoga said Atiku sought to amend the questions for determination and reliefs, introduce new documents and add paragraphs to the supporting affidavit.
He further 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.
Adoga maintained that the proposed amendment could not cure an incompetent originating process after the constitutional deadline for filing a pres-election case had expired.
INEC also argued that the application sought to introduce a fresh cause of action, add a written deposition outside the constitutionally prescribed period and remedy defects in the original suit.
The commission maintained that granting the application would amount to curing a jurisdictional defect after the 14-day period prescribed by Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution for instituting a pres-election suit.
Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until November 20 for ruling on the application.
NAN
