The legal battle over President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election has taken a fresh turn, with former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the All Progressives Congress (APC) locked in a dispute over an attempt to amend a suit challenging the president’s National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate.
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday fixed October 13 for the hearing of Atiku and the African Democratic Congress (ADC)’s application to amend their suit seeking the disqualification of Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential election.
The adjournment by Justice Inyang Ekwo followed disagreements between the parties over whether the proposed amendment merely seeks to correct errors in the original suit or introduces fresh claims and reliefs capable of fundamentally altering the case.
At the centre of the dispute is an allegation by Atiku and the ADC that the APC submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate belonging to Tinubu to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The plaintiffs are asking the court to compel INEC to remove the president and the APC from the list of candidates and political parties for the 2027 presidential election.
However, Tinubu, the APC and INEC have challenged the competence of the suit, raising questions about the plaintiffs’ legal standing, the time within which the action was instituted and the propriety of the proposed amendments.
Dispute Over Amendment
At Monday’s proceedings, counsel to Atiku and the ADC, Joseph Silas, informed the court that although he had received responses from other defendants, he was yet to receive Tinubu’s counter-affidavit opposing the application to amend the suit.
But the president’s lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, told the court that the counter-affidavit had been served on the plaintiffs on September 24 and acknowledged by the office of their counsel.
Justice Ekwo subsequently confirmed the proof of service filed by Olanipekun before adjourning the matter until October 13 for the hearing of the motion.
The application for amendment, filed on September 10, seeks permission to revise the originating summons through which Atiku and the ADC instituted the suit on August 14.
The plaintiffs argued that they discovered errors in the documents attached to their original filing, particularly the description of the relevant INEC form as Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A.
They also said there was a need to provide specific particulars of the alleged fraud, include a written deposition by Atiku and attach clearer copies of exhibits referenced in the suit but unavailable when the action was initially filed.
According to the applicants, the proposed amendment would not introduce a new issue or additional prayers but would correct deficiencies in the original processes in the interest of justice.
They urged the court to grant leave for the amendment and deem the revised originating summons as properly filed.
Tinubu, APC Challenge Proposed Changes
Tinubu, however, opposed the application, arguing that the proposed amendments went beyond correcting errors and would substantially alter the plaintiffs’ original case.
In a counter-affidavit filed on September 24, Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in Olanipekun’s law firm, alleged that the plaintiffs sought to amend the questions for determination and the reliefs originally presented before the court.
He further argued that the proposed amendment introduced a new relief, additional documents and fresh paragraphs in the supporting affidavit.
The president’s legal team maintained that the amendment was an attempt to change the substance of the case rather than correct errors in the description of documents.
Tinubu also argued that the substantive suit was statute-barred, contending that the cause of action arose on July 11, when his name was submitted to INEC, while the suit was filed on August 14.
According to the counter-affidavit, the constitutional time limit for instituting pre-election cases cannot be extended through a court practice direction or an amendment application filed after the prescribed period.
The president’s team further argued that the plaintiffs’ attempt to introduce specific particulars of fraud amounted to an admission that the original originating summons lacked the necessary details.
It maintained that an incompetent originating process could not be cured through an amendment and urged the court to dismiss the application.
The APC also opposed the proposed amendment, aligning itself with the challenge to the plaintiffs’ attempt to revise their originating summons.
INEC Raises Jurisdictional Concerns
INEC has equally challenged both the substantive suit and the application to amend it.
In a preliminary objection filed on September 7, the electoral commission argued that the suit was incompetent on grounds of being statute-barred, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and abuse of court process.
The commission also alleged that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement under the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.
It further questioned the propriety of some of the reliefs sought by Atiku and the ADC and urged the court to dismiss the suit.
In a separate counter-affidavit opposing the amendment, INEC argued that the proposed changes would introduce a fresh cause of action or attempt to cure a jurisdictional defect after the expiration of the constitutionally prescribed 14-day period for instituting a pre-election suit.
The commission also maintained that the amendment sought to introduce a written deposition and reformulate the reliefs after the deadline had elapsed.
Certificate Dispute at the Heart of the Case
The substantive suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, names Tinubu, the APC and INEC as the first, second and third defendants, respectively.
Atiku and the ADC alleged that the APC submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC in respect of the president.
Tinubu and the APC, in their joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
They also denied submitting Form CF001 to the commission for either election, contrary to the plaintiffs’ allegations.
The defendants further maintained that the NYSC had never denied issuing the discharge certificate to Tinubu at the end of his service year.
Citing a previous Supreme Court decision, they argued that proof of forgery requires a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued the disputed document.
They consequently urged the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the suit in its entirety.
With the parties divided over the legality and scope of the proposed amendments, the October 13 hearing is expected to determine whether Atiku and the ADC will be permitted to revise their originating summons or whether the objections raised by the defendants will stand in the way of their challenge.
The court has yet to determine the substantive allegations against Tinubu and the APC.
