The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed October 13 for the hearing of a motion filed by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) seeking to amend their suit against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the matter on Monday to allow the parties to regularise their court processes.
At the proceedings, Atiku and ADC’s lawyer, Joseph Silas, told the court that although responses had been received from some of the defendants, he had not received President Tinubu’s counter-affidavit opposing the proposed amendment.
However, counsel to Tinubu, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, informed the court that the counter-affidavit had been served on the plaintiffs on September 24.
The judge confirmed the proof of service presented by Olanipekun before adjourning the matter.
The motion is connected to a substantive suit filed by Atiku and ADC challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
The plaintiffs allege that a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on Tinubu’s behalf was forged. They are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential election if their claims are established.
Tinubu and the APC have denied the allegations and asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that it is incompetent and that the plaintiffs lack the legal standing to bring the case.
In their response, they also argued that the NYSC has never disowned the discharge certificate attributed to Tinubu.
INEC has separately challenged the competence of the suit, raising issues including limitation, locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and alleged abuse of court process.
Atiku and ADC filed the application to amend the suit on September 10.
They told the court that they discovered errors in the original processes, including the description of an INEC form attached to their affidavit.
The plaintiffs said the form had been referred to as Form CF001 instead of the current Form EC9A and argued that the amendment was also necessary to provide further details of their allegations and attach clearer copies of documents.
They maintained that the proposed changes would not introduce a new issue or additional relief and were being sought in the interest of justice.
Tinubu, however, opposed the application.
In his counter-affidavit, the President argued that the proposed amendment went beyond correcting errors and would substantially alter the case originally presented before the court.
His legal team also contended that the proposed amendment sought to introduce new documents, additional paragraphs and a new relief.
The President’s lawyers further argued that the substantive case was statute-barred because it was filed after the period they said was prescribed for challenging the submission of Tinubu’s particulars to INEC.
They maintained that a court practice direction could not extend the constitutionally prescribed period for filing a pre-election case.
INEC also opposed the amendment, arguing that the proposed changes could introduce a new or different cause of action and attempt to cure what it described as jurisdictional defects after the expiration of the constitutionally prescribed period.
The commission also argued that the proposed amendment sought to address the dispute over the description of the relevant INEC form and introduce a written deposition that was not filed within the required period.
The Federal High Court will now consider the competing arguments on October 13 before determining whether Atiku and ADC should be allowed to amend their originating summons.
Source: NAN.
