Atiku, ADC Seek To Amend Tinubu 2027 Suit

The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned until October 13 to hear an application by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) seeking to amend their suit challenging President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) ahead of the 2027 presidential election.

Naija News reports that Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date on Monday to allow the parties to regularise their court processes.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, centres on allegations concerning a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate that Atiku and the ADC claim Tinubu submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The allegations remain before the court and have not been judicially determined.

When the matter came up on Monday, counsel for Atiku and the ADC, Joseph Silas, told the court that although he had received responses from other defendants, he had yet to receive President Tinubu’s counter-affidavit to the application seeking to amend the suit.

However, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, who represented Tinubu, told the court that the counter-affidavit had been served on the plaintiffs on September 24 and that their counsel’s office had acknowledged receipt.

Justice Ekwo also confirmed that the President’s legal team had filed proof of service.

The judge subsequently adjourned the matter until October 13 for hearing of Atiku and the ADC’s motion to amend their originating summons.

Atiku and the ADC had filed the application on September 10, asking the court for permission to amend their originating summons and deem the amended processes as properly filed.

They said the request became necessary after discovering errors in the description of some INEC forms attached to their affidavit.

According to the plaintiffs, the form had been described as Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A. They also said they wanted to provide clearer copies of some exhibits, include a written deposition by Atiku and set out more specifically the particulars of the alleged fraud.

The applicants maintained that the proposed amendments would not introduce a new issue or additional relief, arguing that they were necessary in the interest of justice.

Tinubu, however, opposed the application in a counter-affidavit filed on September 24.

The President’s legal team argued that the proposed amendment went beyond correcting errors in the description of documents and would substantially alter the case Atiku and the ADC initially presented.

The counter-affidavit, deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in Olanipekun’s law firm, alleged that the plaintiffs were seeking to introduce new documents, additional paragraphs and a fresh relief.

Adoga stated that the proposed amendment “essentially attempts to alter the entire case of the plaintiffs as presented before this honourable court.”

He also argued that the substantive suit was statute-barred, contending that the cause of action arose when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC.

According to him, the Federal High Court’s Practice Direction could not extend the constitutional period within which a pre-election matter could be instituted.

He therefore urged the court to dismiss the motion for amendment. The APC has also opposed Atiku’s request to amend the suit.

INEC also objected to the application, arguing that the proposed changes would introduce a new cause of action and attempt to cure what it described as jurisdictional defects after the constitutionally prescribed period expired.

The commission had earlier filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the substantive suit on grounds including alleged statute bar, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and abuse of court process.

In their earlier joint response, Tinubu and the APC denied submitting any forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.

They also denied submitting Form CF001 as alleged by Atiku and the ADC, maintaining that the NYSC had never disowned the discharge certificate attributed to the President.

Their lawyers argued that an allegation of forgery would require evidence from the institution said to have issued the document, including a disclaimer where appropriate.

INEC, for its part, has challenged the suit’s competence and argued that the mere allegation that a forged certificate was submitted does not automatically establish the constitutional disqualification the plaintiffs seek.