Court To Rule On Atiku’s Bid To Amend Tinubu Certificate Forgery Suit November 20

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday fixed November 20 to deliver its ruling on an application by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, seeking to amend his suit against President Bola Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date after lawyers representing the parties adopted their respective processes and presented arguments for and against the application.

Atiku and the ADC had, in their substantive suit, asked the court to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election over allegations concerning the president’s National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to INEC by the ruling party.

The plaintiffs, who listed Tinubu, the APC and INEC as the first to third defendants in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, alleged that the APC submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate belonging to the president to the electoral commission.

They consequently asked the court to compel INEC to remove Tinubu’s name and that of the APC from the list of candidates and political parties for the 2027 presidential election.

However, after the defendants filed their counter-affidavits challenging the suit, Atiku and the ADC approached the court for permission to amend their originating summons, citing errors and other irregularities in their initial filings.

When the case was called on Tuesday, Atiku’s counsel, Mr Joseph Silas, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for the hearing of the motion seeking permission to amend the originating summons.

President Tinubu’s counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN; APC’s lawyer, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN; and INEC’s counsel, Mr Alex Izinyon, SAN, confirmed their readiness to proceed.

Moving the application, Silas said the motion was dated September 4 and filed on September 10. He added that the plaintiffs had filed replies on points of law after receiving the defendants’ respective counter-affidavits.

Silas urged the court to grant the application and allow the proposed amendments.

Opposing the request, Olanipekun said a nine-paragraph counter-affidavit had been filed on Tinubu’s behalf on September 24. He urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought.

The senior advocate also contended that Atiku’s application was statute-barred and that the proposed amendments amounted to instituting a fresh action rather than correcting errors in the existing suit.

Olujinmi, representing the APC, equally urged the court to dismiss the application, noting that the party had filed a counter-affidavit and written address on September 12.

INEC’s counsel, Izinyon, aligned himself with the arguments advanced by the president’s and APC’s lawyers. He said the commission had filed a six-paragraph counter-affidavit, a written address and an exhibit on September 10.

Izinyon added that the commission’s latest filing was an additional authority submitted on October 9. He also urged the court to dismiss the application.

After hearing the arguments, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until November 20 for ruling.

In their joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9 in response to the substantive suit, Tinubu and the APC asked the court to dismiss the case in its entirety, describing it as incompetent and arguing that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the action.

They denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.

Through the APC’s Director of Legal Services, Mr Sanusi Samaila, they maintained that they had not submitted Form CF001 to INEC for either election, contrary to the plaintiffs’ claims.

They also argued that the NYSC had never denied issuing the discharge certificate to Tinubu at the end of his service year.

According to the defendants, a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued a certificate is the established legal evidence required to prove that the document is forged. They cited a previous Supreme Court decision in support of their position and urged the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.

INEC had separately challenged the competence of the case in a preliminary objection filed on September 7 by Izinyon.

The commission argued that the suit was statute-barred, that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi, that there was no reasonable cause of action and that the case amounted to an abuse of court process.

It also alleged that Atiku and the ADC failed to comply with the mandatory written-deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.

The electoral commission further challenged the propriety of Reliefs 2 and 3 in the originating summons and asked the court to dismiss the suit.

Atiku and the ADC filed their motion on notice on September 10, seeking permission to amend the originating summons under Paragraph 7(8) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions, 2006, and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

In the application, they sought an order granting them leave to amend their originating summons and another order deeming the proposed amended summons, once filed, as properly filed.

The plaintiffs outlined four grounds for the application, explaining that they instituted the suit on August 14 to obtain the reliefs contained in the original originating summons.

They said they subsequently discovered errors, particularly in the description of INEC forms attached to their affidavit. According to them, the document was referred to as Form CF001 instead of the current Form EC9A.

They also said it was necessary to specify the particulars of the alleged fraud in their affidavit, include a written deposition by Atiku as the first plaintiff and attach clearer copies of exhibits referenced in the suit but unavailable when the action was initially filed.

The plaintiffs maintained that the proposed amendments would replace the existing documents and correct deficiencies in the presentation of their case without introducing new issues or seeking additional reliefs.

They argued that, as plaintiffs, they were entitled to amend their processes in the interest of justice.

Tinubu, however, opposed the application in a counter-affidavit filed on September 24. The affidavit was deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer at the law firm of Olanipekun, the president’s lead counsel.

Adoga argued that, contrary to Atiku’s claims, the proposed amended originating summons, marked Exhibit P1, sought to alter the questions for determination and the reliefs requested.

He alleged that the plaintiffs intended to introduce an entirely new relief that was absent from the original originating summons.

He also contended that they sought to introduce new documents through their affidavit by substituting Form CF001 with Form EC9 and inserting new paragraphs into the supporting affidavit.

According to Adoga, the proposed amendments would fundamentally alter the plaintiffs’ case before the court.

He described the application as misconceived and disputed the accuracy of the facts presented in the supporting affidavit, alleging that several paragraphs were untrue, misleading or presented in a manner that could mislead the court.

Adoga further argued that Atiku’s substantive suit was statute-barred because it was filed on August 14, whereas the cause of action being challenged allegedly arose on July 11, when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC. He acknowledged that the commission published the particulars of presidential candidates, including their submitted certificates, on August 1.

He maintained that the time limit for instituting such actions was prescribed by the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and could not be extended through the court’s practice directions.

According to him, the practice directions did not permit a party to file or amend an originating summons after the constitutionally prescribed period for instituting the action had expired.

Adoga also argued that Atiku’s request went beyond correcting errors in the description of documents.

He said the plaintiffs’ attempt to introduce particulars of the alleged fraud amounted to an admission that the original originating summons lacked those details, thereby rendering it incompetent.

He further submitted that an incompetent originating process could not be amended and alleged that the proposed amended summons contained an additional prayer.

Adoga consequently urged the court to dismiss the application in the interest of justice.

The APC also opposed the proposed amendments.

INEC had similarly opposed the application in a counter-affidavit filed in response to the plaintiffs’ motion on notice on September 10.

In the affidavit, Mendie Akpan, a litigation secretary at the law firm of Alex Izinyon and Company, said the commission’s preliminary objection, filed on September 7 and served on the plaintiffs, remained pending and undetermined.

Akpan argued that Atiku’s application and the proposed amended originating summons sought to substitute or introduce a new cause of action.

She also contended that the application sought to introduce a written deposition that was not filed within the constitutionally prescribed period, reformulate the reliefs sought and correct the confusion surrounding the references to Forms CF001 and EC9.

According to her, granting the application would introduce a fresh or different cause of action or, alternatively, attempt to cure a jurisdictional defect after the 14-day period prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution for instituting a pre-election suit had expired.