A Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled a ruling on 20 November on the request by former Vice President and presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, to amend the suit he is seeking to, among other things, stop President Bola Tinubu from participating in the next presidential election. FollowPolitics
Justice Inyang Ekwo set the date on Tuesday after lawyers for the parties made final submissions on the application for Atiku and the ADC to amend the suit.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, lists President Tinubu, his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as defendants.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Atiku’s lawyer, Joseph Silas, adopted his written address and urged the court to grant the application for amendment.
Silas said the amendment sought would allow the plaintiffs to provide more evidence and correct errors in the documents filed earlier.
The plaintiffs filed the application on 10 September, seeking leave to amend their originating summons and to have the proposed amended process deemed properly filed.
Atiku and the ADC claimed to have discovered errors in the original suit, including referring to an INEC form as Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A.
They said the amendment was necessary to set out the particulars of the alleged fraud, including a written deposition by Atiku, and to attach clearer copies of exhibits that were unavailable when the suit was filed.
In their submissions, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), for President Tinubu; Akin Olujinmi (SAN), for the APC; and Alex Izinyon (SAN), for INEC, urged the court to decline the plaintiffs’ request. FollowPolitics
The defendants’ lawyers argued that the plaintiffs intended to alter the nature of the suit, to which they had already filed responses.
President Tinubu, in a counter-affidavit filed by Olanipekun, argued that, contrary to the plaintiffs’ claim that the amendment was to rectify typographical errors, they also plan to extend the alteration to the questions for determination and the reliefs sought in the originating summons.
He added that Atiku sought to introduce an entirely new relief not sought in the earlier originating summons that initiated the action.
“I also observed that the plaintiffs seek to introduce new documents through the affidavit by substituting FORM CF001 for FORM EC9, while seeking to introduce entirely new paragraphs in the supporting affidavit to the originating summons.”
According to him, the plaintiffs’ amendment essentially seeks to alter the entire case as presented before this honourable court.
“The entire facts deposed to in the affidavit in support of the motion on notice, including paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, are untrue, misconceived or skewed to mislead this honourable court.”
The President noted that the plaintiffs made it clear that their purported cause of action is predicated on the documents submitted by the President to INEC.
He, however, argued that Atiku’s substantive suit is statute-barred, having been filed on Aug. 14, while the cause of action which he is challenging arose on July 11, when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC, even though the commission published the particulars of all presidential candidates with their submitted certificates on August 1. FollowPolitics
According to him, the 1999 Constitution (as amended) prescribes the timeline for institutions, not the Practice Direction of this Honourable Court.
Read Also: Wike: FCT projects will boost Tinubu’s votes
“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.
Besides, he argued that, contrary to Atiku’s reliefs, the amendment sought more than just “to correct errors of description of documents.”
“The attempt to ‘set out the particulars of fraud in the affidavit’ is an admission that the previously filed originating summons contained no such particulars, thus rendering it incompetent.”
He submitted that an incompetent originating process cannot be amended, adding that the proposed amended originating summons clearly indicated that an additional prayer is being sought therein.
The APC also raised similar issues in its counter affidavit, while INEC, represented by Alex Izinyon (SAN), argued that Atiku’s motion to amend and the proposed amended originating summons are meant to substitute or bring in a new cause of action.
INEC added that the motion sought to attach a written deposition not filed within the constitutionally prescribed period, reformulate reliefs and cure the CF001/EC9 confusion.
It argued that, if granted, the proposed amendment would introduce a fresh or different cause of action.
INEC noted that, in the alternative, the motion, if granted, would cure a jurisdictional defect after the 14-day period prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution for instituting a pre-election suit.
In the substantive suit, Atiku and the ADC are seeking, among other things, an order disqualifying President Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
They questioned the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate that Tinubu submitted to INEC. FollowPolitics
In a supporting affidavit, Atiku alleged that President Tinubu submitted an NYSC discharge certificate to INEC bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle,” which, according to him, differs from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
He further alleged that he submitted the same NYSC certificate for the 2027 presidential election, claiming Tinubu did not obtain the document.