Atiku vs Tinubu: Court Reserves Ruling on Amendment Application for November 20

The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled November 20 to rule on a motion by African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar seeking to amend his suit against President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) over the president’s eligibility for the 2027 election.

Justice Inyang Ekwo announced the date on Tuesday after counsel to the parties adopted their processes and argued for and against the proposed amendment.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Atiku and the ADC instituted the substantive suit to challenge Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election, alleging that a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate was submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The plaintiffs are seeking an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from the election and compelling INEC to remove their names from the list of eligible candidates and political parties.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, lists Tinubu, the APC and INEC as the first, second and third defendants, respectively.

The amendment application followed the filing of counter-affidavits by the defendants, with Atiku and the ADC arguing that corrections and additional details were necessary to their original court documents.

Lawyers Clash Over Application

At Tuesday’s proceedings, Atiku’s lawyer, Joseph Silas, told the court that the matter was scheduled for the hearing of the motion seeking leave to amend the originating summons.

Counsel to the defendants—Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, for Tinubu; Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, for the APC; and Alex Izinyon, SAN, for INEC—confirmed their readiness to proceed.

Silas said the application was dated September 4 and filed on September 10. He added that the plaintiffs had responded to the defendants’ counter-affidavits with a reply on points of law.

After adopting the plaintiffs’ processes, he urged Justice Ekwo to grant the application.

Olanipekun, however, opposed the motion, telling the court that the president had filed a nine-paragraph counter-affidavit on September 24.

“We adopt these processes in urging my lord to dismiss this application as the court is without jurisdiction to grant this,” he said.

The senior advocate argued that the application was statute-barred and that the plaintiffs were seeking to institute a new action under the guise of amending the existing suit.

He urged the court to dismiss the motion.

Olujinmi also opposed the application on behalf of the APC, informing the court that the party had filed a counter-affidavit and written address on September 12.

Izinyon supported the arguments advanced by the other defence lawyers. He said INEC had filed a six-paragraph counter-affidavit, a written address and an exhibit on September 10.

He added that the commission’s latest filing was an additional authority submitted on October 9 and urged the court to reject the application.

Following the submissions, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until November 20 for ruling.

Defendants Dispute Forgery Allegation

In their joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, Tinubu and the APC urged the court to dismiss the substantive suit, arguing that it was incompetent and that Atiku and the ADC lacked the legal right to institute the proceedings.

The defendants denied submitting a forged certificate to INEC in connection with either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.

They also maintained, through the APC’s Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, that they did not submit Form CF001 to INEC for either election, as alleged by the plaintiffs.

According to the defendants, the NYSC has never denied issuing Tinubu’s discharge certificate after the completion of his service year.

They further argued that a disclaimer issued by the institution purported to have issued a certificate is the established legal evidence required to prove forgery, citing a previous Supreme Court decision.

The defendants asked the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the case.

INEC, in a separate preliminary objection filed on September 7, also challenged the suit on several grounds, including being statute-barred, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and abuse of court process.

The commission further argued that the plaintiffs failed to meet the mandatory written-deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.

It also challenged the propriety of reliefs two and three in the originating summons.

Atiku Cites Errors in Original Court Documents

Atiku and the ADC filed their motion on notice on September 10, seeking permission to amend their originating summons under Paragraph 7(8) of the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice Directions, 2006, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

They asked for leave to file an amended originating summons and an order deeming the amended process properly filed.

The applicants explained that they instituted the suit on August 14 but later discovered errors in the documents, particularly the reference to Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A.

They also said the proposed changes were intended to set out the particulars of the alleged fraud, include Atiku’s written deposition and provide clearer copies of exhibits that were unavailable when the original case was filed.

According to the plaintiffs, the proposed amendment would not introduce a new issue or additional prayers.

They maintained that they “are entitled to make this amendment in the interest of justice.”

Tinubu Says Amendment Would Change the Case

Tinubu opposed the application in a counter-affidavit filed on September 24, deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in the law firm of his lead counsel, Olanipekun.

Adoga argued that the proposed amended originating summons, marked Exhibit “P1,” went beyond correcting errors in the original documents.

He alleged that Atiku also sought to amend the questions for determination and the reliefs requested, introduce an entirely new relief, substitute Form CF001 with Form EC9 and add new paragraphs to the supporting affidavit.

According to Adoga, the proposed changes would fundamentally alter the plaintiffs’ case.

He described the motion as misconceived and disputed the factual assertions contained in the affidavit supporting the application.

Adoga also argued that the substantive suit was filed outside the constitutionally prescribed period, claiming that the cause of action arose on July 11, when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC. He noted that INEC published the particulars of the presidential candidates and their submitted certificates on August 1.

He maintained that the constitutional deadline for instituting the action could not be extended through the court’s practice directions.

“The Practice Direction does not entitle any party to file or seek to amend their originating summons upon the expiration of the time prescribed by the Constitution for the institution of the action,” he added.

He further contended that the plaintiffs’ attempt to include the particulars of the alleged fraud showed that the original originating summons lacked those details, arguing that an incompetent originating process could not be amended.

Adoga also alleged that the proposed amended summons introduced an additional prayer and asked the court to dismiss the application.

INEC Warns of New Cause of Action

INEC also opposed the proposed amendment, noting that its preliminary objection filed on September 7 remained pending.

In a counter-affidavit, Mendie Akpan, a litigation secretary at Alex Izinyon & Co, argued that the application sought to substitute or introduce a new cause of action.

She said the proposed amendment would introduce a written deposition that was not filed within the constitutionally prescribed period, reformulate the reliefs and address the discrepancy between Forms CF001 and EC9.

Akpan argued that granting the application would introduce a fresh or different cause of action.

Alternatively, she maintained that the amendment would attempt to cure a jurisdictional defect after the expiration of the 14-day period provided under Section 285(9) of the Constitution for filing a pre-election suit.

The court will deliver its ruling on the amendment application on November 20.

Africans Angle News