By Ebube Chukwura
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and presidential
candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) is seeking permission to
alter their court case challenging President Bola Tinubu and the All
Progressives Congress (APC) ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed October 13, 2026,
to hear the application after Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned proceedings on
Monday to give the parties time to regularise their court processes.
The decision followed a disagreement over whether Tinubu’s
lawyers had properly served their response to the application. Atiku’s counsel,
Joseph Silas, told the court he had received responses from other parties but
had not received the President’s counter-affidavit.
Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, representing Tinubu, disputed
that account. He told the court that the President’s counter-affidavit had been
served on the plaintiffs on September 24 and that the office of their lawyer
had acknowledged receiving it.
Justice Ekwo examined the proof of service contained in the
court file and confirmed the document. The judge then adjourned the matter,
leaving the substantive arguments over the proposed amendment for determination
at the October hearing.
Atiku and the ADC filed their original action on August 14,
asking the court to prevent Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027
presidential election. The case is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026.
The plaintiffs’ challenge centres on an allegation
concerning a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate which
they claim was submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission
(INEC) on Tinubu’s behalf. The allegation has been denied by Tinubu and the
APC.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to direct INEC to
remove Tinubu and the APC from the relevant list for the presidential election.
INEC is also a defendant in the case, alongside Tinubu and the APC.
The proposed amendment emerged after the plaintiffs said
they discovered mistakes and omissions in the documents filed when the case
began. Among the issues they identified was the description of an INEC form
attached to their affidavit.
They said the document had been identified as Form CF001
when, according to their application, it should have been referred to as Form
EC9A. They also sought to provide clearer copies of exhibits and expand parts
of their supporting affidavit.
Atiku and the ADC further said the amended papers would
expressly set out the particulars of the alleged fraud and include a written
deposition from Atiku. They argued that the changes would improve the
presentation of their existing case.
The plaintiffs maintained that their application did not
introduce a new issue or additional prayers. They asked the court to grant
leave for the amended originating summons and to deem the amended process
properly filed.
Tinubu, however, has opposed the proposed changes. In a counter-affidavit
filed on September 24, the President argued that the amendment goes beyond
correcting errors and would substantially alter the case originally presented
before the court.
The counter-affidavit was deposed to by Moses Adoga, a
litigation support officer in the law firm of Olanipekun, Tinubu’s lead
counsel. Adoga argued that the proposed amended documents contained changes to
questions for determination and the reliefs being sought.
According to the President’s response, Atiku’s proposed
amendment would introduce a relief that was not contained in the original
originating summons. It also alleged that the plaintiffs intended to introduce
additional documents and new paragraphs into their supporting affidavit.
Tinubu’s legal team further argued that the attempt to
provide fuller particulars of the alleged fraud suggested that important
details were absent from the original filing. It maintained that an originating
process containing a fundamental defect could not simply be repaired through
amendment.
The President’s lawyers also challenged the timing of the
case itself. They argued that the action was filed on August 14, while the
cause of action being challenged allegedly arose on July 11, when Tinubu’s name
was submitted to INEC.
They noted that INEC later published the particulars of
presidential candidates and their submitted certificates on August 1. Their
argument is that constitutional deadlines, rather than court practice
directions, govern the period within which such a pre-election action can be
instituted.
The defence further contended that the proposed changes
amounted to more than correcting the description of documents. It argued that
the plaintiffs were effectively attempting to cure defects in their original
case after the period allowed for bringing the action had expired.
INEC has also opposed the proposed amendment. The electoral
commission filed a preliminary objection on September 7, challenging the
competence of the main case on several grounds, including alleged statute-bar,
lack of locus standi and absence of a reasonable cause of action.
The commission also argued that the plaintiffs did not
comply with a mandatory written-deposition requirement contained in the Federal
High Court’s 2026 Pre-Election Practice Directions. It separately challenged
two of the reliefs contained in Atiku and the ADC’s originating summons.
In its response to the amendment application, INEC argued
that the proposed changes could amount to introducing a fresh cause of action.
Alternatively, it said they could be an attempt to cure a jurisdictional defect
after the constitutional 14-day period for filing a pre-election case had
expired.
The disagreement over the amendment is only one stage of a
wider legal contest. Earlier proceedings in the case were affected by
difficulties serving Tinubu with the originating processes, prompting Atiku’s
lawyers to seek permission for substituted service.
Justice Ekwo subsequently allowed the court papers to be
served on Tinubu through the APC. The order came after the plaintiffs said they
had been unable to personally serve the President, although his lawyers had
appeared in court.
The case has therefore already produced arguments over
service, the competence of the action and the timing of the proceedings before
the court reaches the substance of the proposed amendment. The substantive
allegations themselves remain contested and have not been judicially
determined.
Tinubu and the APC have consistently denied submitting any
forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027
presidential elections. Their lawyers have also argued that the NYSC has not
disowned the certificate said to have been issued to the President.
The defence has further relied on the argument that evidence
of forgery would ordinarily require a disclaimer from the institution alleged
to have issued the document. That position forms part of the defendants’
broader request for the court to dismiss Atiku’s case.
INEC, for its part, has not taken a position establishing
the truth or otherwise of the certificate allegation. Its objections instead
focus on the legal competence of the action, procedural requirements and
whether the plaintiffs brought the case within the constitutionally prescribed
period.
For Atiku and the ADC, the amendment application is intended
to place what they describe as a clearer and more complete case before the
court. For Tinubu, the APC and INEC, the proposed changes raise questions about
timing, jurisdiction and the nature of the original action.
Those competing positions will be tested when Justice Ekwo
hears the application on October 13. Until then, the court’s immediate task is
not to decide the allegation of certificate forgery, but to determine whether
the plaintiffs should be allowed to revise the case they originally filed.
Post a Comment