The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday fixed 13 October to hear an application by Atiku Abubakar seeking to amend his suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo set the date, saying it would allow the parties to regularise their court processes. He acted after a brief exchange over whether one of the affidavits had been properly served.
When the case was called, Atiku’s counsel, Joseph Silas, told the court he had received responses from the other respondents but had not been served with Tinubu’s counter affidavit opposing the amendment. The president’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, replied that the document was served on the plaintiffs on 24 September and acknowledged by their counsel’s office. Justice Ekwo confirmed the proof of service before adjourning.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was filed by Atiku, presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, and the party as first and second plaintiffs. They sued Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission as first to third defendants. In the main suit they ask the court to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 poll over a National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to INEC. The allegations remain before the court and have not been decided.
At the centre of the dispute is a claim by the plaintiffs that the name on the NYSC certificate reads “Tinubu Bola Adekunle” while the president is known as Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Atiku is asking the court to compel INEC to remove Tinubu and the APC from the list of candidates for the election. The defendants deny the claim.
The amendment Atiku now seeks was filed on 10 September. According to the plaintiffs, they noticed errors after filing, including a reference to an INEC document as Form CF001 rather than the current Form EC9A. They also said they needed to set out fuller particulars of the alleged fraud, attach a written deposition by Atiku and provide clearer copies of exhibits that were not available when the suit was filed. They maintain that no new issue or additional prayer is being introduced, and that the changes are in the interest of justice.
Tinubu and the APC oppose the application. In a joint counter affidavit filed on 9 September through the APC’s Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, they asked the court to dismiss the suit as incompetent and argued that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to bring it. They denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 elections, and said they did not submit any Form CF001 to the commission. They further argued that the NYSC has never disowned the certificate, and cited a Supreme Court decision for the position that forgery can only be proved by a disclaimer from the issuing institution.
The president filed a separate counter affidavit on 24 September opposing the amendment itself. It was deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in Olanipekun’s chambers. Adoga argued that the proposed amendment goes beyond correcting errors of description, contending that Atiku is seeking to introduce an entirely new relief, reformulate the questions for determination and bring in fresh paragraphs and documents. He submitted that an incompetent originating process cannot be amended.
Adoga also raised a timing objection. He argued that the substantive suit is statute barred, having been filed on 14 August, while the cause of action arose on 11 July when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC, and that the commission had published the particulars of all presidential candidates and their certificates on 1 August. He said the constitutional timeline for pre-election actions cannot be extended by the court’s Practice Direction.
INEC has taken a similar line. In a preliminary objection filed on 7 September by its counsel, Alex Izinyon, SAN, the commission challenged the suit on grounds of statute bar, lack of standing, absence of a reasonable cause of action and abuse of court process. In a further counter affidavit, INEC argued that granting the amendment would introduce a fresh cause of action or cure a jurisdictional defect after the 14 day period prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution for pre-election suits.
The matter now turns on whether the court allows Atiku to amend before any argument on the substance is heard. Justice Ekwo is expected to take arguments on the application on 13 October. Until then, none of the competing claims about the certificate or the timing of the suit has been tested.