ABUJA, NIGERIA — Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, has applied for permission to amend his suit against President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress at the Federal High Court, Abuja.
Atiku on Monday told the court that he needed to make substantial amendments to his case challenging the eligibility of President Tinubu to participate in the 2027 presidential election. Justice Inyang Ekwo has fixed October 13 for the hearing of the application and to allow parties in the suit to regularise their processes.
When the case was called on Monday, Joseph Silas, who appeared for Atiku and the ADC, told the court that though he had received responses from other respondents, he was yet to get President Tinubu’s counter affidavit to their motion to amend the suit. However, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, lawyer to the President, informed the court that their counter affidavit was served on the plaintiffs on September 24 and acknowledged by the office of the plaintiffs’ counsel. Justice Ekwo confirmed the proof of service filed by Olanipekun through the case file.
The judge consequently adjourned the matter until October 13 for the hearing of the motion to amend the originating summons filed by Atiku and the ADC.
The Substantive Suit
Atiku and the ADC had in the main suit asked Justice Ekwo to disqualify President Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential election. They had questioned Tinubu’s National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission by the APC. The plaintiffs, who sued the President, the APC, and INEC as first to third defendants in the originating summons marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, alleged that the APC submitted the President’s forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC. They, therefore, prayed the court to compel INEC to remove Tinubu and the APC from the list of candidates and parties for the presidential poll.
Tinubu, APC’s Defence
But President Tinubu and the APC, in their joint counter affidavit filed on September 9, prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety for being incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the case. They denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC either for the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections. The duo, through the APC’s Director of Legal Services, Mr. Sanusi Samaila, averred that they did not submit any Form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or 2027 poll as claimed by the plaintiffs. They stated that the NYSC has never denied issuing the discharge certificate to the first defendant at the end of his service year.
They submitted that it is a settled law that the evidence required to prove that a certificate is forged is a disclaimer from the institution that is said to have issued the certificate, citing a previous Supreme Court decision to back their argument. They urged the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.
INEC’s Objection
INEC, in its preliminary objection filed on September 7 by its lawyer, Dr. Alex Izinyon, SAN, also challenged the competence of the suit on the grounds of being statute-barred, want of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action, and abuse of court process. The commission argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026. The electoral umpire equally challenged the impropriety of Reliefs 2 and 3 in Atiku and the ADC’s originating summons, urging the court to dismiss the suit.
The Amendment Application
Atiku and the ADC, however, approached the court with a motion on notice on September 10, seeking an amendment to the suit. They said the application was brought pursuant to Paragraph 7(8) of the FHC (Pre-election) Practice Directions, 2006, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. In the two reliefs, they sought an order granting leave to them to amend their originating summons. They also prayed the court for an order deeming the amended originating summons filed upon their application as a properly filed amended originating summons.
Giving four grounds why their application should be granted, the applicants said they filed the suit on August 14, seeking the reliefs contained in the originating summons. Atiku and the ADC said that after filing the originating summons, they noticed a few errors, especially on the nomenclature of the INEC forms attached to their affidavit, which was referred to as Form CF001, instead of the now Form EC9A. They said there was also the need to specifically set out the particulars of the alleged fraud in their affidavit, including a written deposition of the first plaintiff and attaching clearer copies of exhibits referred to, but were not available with the plaintiffs as at the time of filing the suit.
They said these would replace “the one presently attached, but is inelegant,” and that no new issue had been added to the amended originating summons and no additional prayers sought. Besides, they submitted that as plaintiffs, they “are entitled to make this amendment in the interest of justice.”
Tinubu’s Opposition
But President Tinubu, in a counter affidavit filed on September 24, opposed the application to amend the suit. The President, in the counter affidavit deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in the law firm of Wole Olanipekun, SAN, his lead counsel, disagreed with Atiku’s submission. Adoga said that, contrary to the reliefs sought by Atiku in his amended originating summons marked as Exhibit “P1,” he noticed that the ADC presidential candidate also sought to amend the questions for determination and reliefs sought.
The officer said he observed that Atiku sought to introduce an entirely new relief, which was not sought in the originating summons with which the action was initiated. “I also observed that the plaintiffs seek to introduce new documents through the affidavit, by substituting FORM CF001 for FORM EC9, while seeking to introduce entirely new paragraphs in the supporting affidavit to the originating summons,” he said.
According to him, the amendment sought to be made by the plaintiffs essentially attempts to alter the entire case of the plaintiffs as presented before the court. Adoga submitted that the said motion was misconceived. He said he observed that the plaintiffs made it clear that their purported cause of action is predicated on the documents submitted by the President to INEC.
He, however, argued that Atiku’s substantive suit is statute-barred, having been filed on August 14 while the cause of action which he is challenging arose on July 11 when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC, even though the commission published the particulars of all presidential candidates with their submitted certificates on August 1. According to him, the timeline for the institution of actions is prescribed by the 1999 Constitution and not the Practice Direction of the court.
Adoga submitted that an incompetent originating process cannot be amended. He stated further that the proposed amended originating summons clearly indicated that an additional prayer is being sought therein. Adoga prayed the court to dismiss the motion for amendment in the interest of justice.
APC, INEC Also Oppose
The APC equally opposed the motion to amend the suit. INEC had also opposed Atiku’s motion to amend the suit. The commission, in a counter affidavit to the plaintiffs’ motion on notice for amendment filed on September 10, said its preliminary objection, filed on September 7 and served on the plaintiffs, is still pending and undetermined.
Mendie Akpan, a litigation secretary in the law firm of Alex Izinyon & Co, who deposed to the counter affidavit, argued that Atiku’s motion to amend and the proposed amended originating summons is seeking to substitute or bring in a new cause of action. She further submitted that the motion sought to attach a written deposition not filed within the constitutionally prescribed period, reformulate reliefs, and cure the CF001/EC9 confusion.
The lawyer argued that the proposed amendment, if granted, would have the effect of introducing a fresh or different cause of action. Alternatively, she said it would have the effect of curing a jurisdictional defect after the expiration of the 14-day period prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution for instituting a pre-election suit.
The matter has been adjourned to October 13 for the hearing of the motion to amend the originating summons. As the legal battle continues, the case is expected to remain a key issue in the political landscape ahead of the 2027 elections. For now, all parties are preparing for the next phase of the litigation, which could have significant implications for the eligibility of President Tinubu to contest the 2027 presidential election.
