The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled November 20 to deliver its ruling on an application by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) seeking permission to amend their suit challenging President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date on Tuesday after lawyers representing Atiku, Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) presented their arguments for and against the proposed amendments.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election over allegations concerning the president’s National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to INEC. The plaintiffs alleged that the APC submitted a forged certificate on Tinubu’s behalf and want the court to compel INEC to remove the president and his party from the list of candidates and parties for the election.
The application to amend the suit followed the filing of counter-affidavits by the defendants, who challenged the competence of the case. Atiku and the ADC subsequently approached the court to correct what they described as errors in their originating summons and supporting documents.
When the matter was called on Tuesday, Atiku’s lawyer, Joseph Silas, told the court that the hearing concerned their application to amend the originating summons. Counsel to Tinubu, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), APC lawyer Akin Olujinmi (SAN), and INEC’s counsel, Alex Izinyon (SAN), confirmed their readiness to proceed.
Moving the application, Silas said it was dated September 4 and filed on September 10. He explained that the plaintiffs had also filed a reply on points of law after receiving the defendants’ responses and urged the court to grant the requested amendments.
However, Olanipekun opposed the application, arguing that the court lacked the jurisdiction to grant it. He said Tinubu had filed a nine-paragraph counter-affidavit and maintained that the proposed changes were statute-barred and amounted to introducing a fresh case rather than correcting existing errors.
Olujinmi also urged the court to reject the application, informing the judge that the APC had filed its counter-affidavit and written address on September 12. Izinyon aligned himself with the arguments presented by Tinubu’s and the APC’s lawyers, saying INEC had filed a six-paragraph counter-affidavit, a written address and an exhibit on September 10. He added that the commission’s latest process was an additional legal authority filed on October 9.
After listening to the submissions, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until November 20 for a ruling.
In their joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, Tinubu and the APC asked the court to dismiss the substantive suit, describing it as incompetent and arguing that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the action. They also 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, the defendants maintained that neither Tinubu nor the party submitted Form CF001 to INEC for the elections, as alleged by Atiku and the ADC. They also said the NYSC had never denied issuing Tinubu a discharge certificate at the end of his service year.
Tinubu and the APC argued that the appropriate evidence of a forged certificate would be a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued it, citing a previous Supreme Court decision in support of their position. They urged the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the case.
INEC separately challenged the suit on several grounds, including that it was filed outside the legally prescribed period, that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi, that there was no reasonable cause of action and that the case amounted to an abuse of court process.
The commission also argued 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 further questioned the validity of Reliefs 2 and 3 in the originating summons and asked the court to dismiss the action.
Atiku and the ADC filed their motion seeking permission to amend the suit on September 10, relying on Paragraph 7(8) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions, 2006, and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs requested two orders: permission to amend their originating summons and an order deeming the amended summons already filed alongside the application as properly filed.
They explained that the original suit was instituted on August 14 but that they subsequently identified errors, particularly in the names of the INEC forms referenced in their affidavit. They said Form CF001 had been cited instead of the form they identified as EC9A.
The applicants also sought to provide specific details of the alleged fraud in their supporting affidavit, include a written deposition by Atiku and attach clearer copies of exhibits that they said were unavailable when the case was initially filed.
They maintained that the proposed changes were intended to correct deficiencies in the documents rather than introduce new issues or additional prayers. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to amend their case in the interest of justice.
Tinubu, however, opposed the application in a counter-affidavit filed on September 24. The affidavit was deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in the law firm of the president’s lead counsel, Olanipekun.
Adoga argued that the proposed amended summons went beyond correcting the description of documents, claiming that Atiku and the ADC sought to alter the questions for determination and introduce a new relief that was absent from the original suit.
He also alleged that the plaintiffs intended to introduce new documents and additional paragraphs into their supporting affidavit, including a substitution of Form CF001 with Form EC9. According to him, the proposed changes would substantially alter the case originally presented to the court.
Adoga described the application as misconceived and disputed several statements contained in the affidavit supporting the motion.
He further argued that the substantive suit was statute-barred because Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC on July 11, while Atiku and the ADC did not file their case until August 14. Although INEC published the particulars of presidential candidates and their submitted certificates on August 1, Tinubu’s legal team maintained that the constitutional deadline for filing a pre-election case was triggered earlier.
According to the president’s defence, the time limit for instituting such actions is established by the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and cannot be extended through the court’s practice directions. Adoga argued that the rules did not permit a party to amend an originating summons after the constitutional deadline had expired.
He also contended that the plaintiffs’ intention to add particulars of the alleged fraud showed that those details were absent from the original filing, which he argued made the initial process incompetent. He maintained that an incompetent originating process could not subsequently be amended and asked the court to dismiss the application.
The APC also opposed the proposed amendments.
INEC similarly filed a counter-affidavit against the motion, maintaining that its preliminary objection, submitted on September 7 and served on the plaintiffs, remained pending before the court.
In the affidavit, Mendie Akpan, a litigation secretary at Alex Izinyon & Co, argued that the proposed changes sought to introduce a new cause of action, add a written deposition that was not filed within the constitutionally prescribed period and reformulate the reliefs being sought.
The commission also said the proposed amendment attempted to resolve the dispute over the identification of Form CF001 and Form EC9. It argued that allowing the changes would introduce a fresh or different cause of action or improperly cure a jurisdictional defect after the expiration of the 14-day period prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution for filing pre-election cases.
The court’s November 20 ruling will determine whether Atiku and the ADC can amend their originating summons as requested. The substantive allegations concerning Tinubu’s NYSC discharge certificate remain contested, with the president, the APC and INEC denying the claims or challenging the legal basis of the suit.
