By Ade Oyeyemi
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 20 to deliver its ruling on an application by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar seeking to amend his suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election over an alleged forgery of his National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date on Tuesday after hearing arguments from lawyers representing Atiku, the African Democratic Congress, Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress.
Atiku, who is the ADC’s presidential candidate, is seeking permission to amend the originating summons filed in the suit. His lawyer, Joseph Onu, told the court that the proposed changes were necessary to correct errors in the original processes and introduce additional materials supporting the plaintiffs’ allegations.
The plaintiffs filed the application on September 10, asking the court to approve the amended documents and deem them properly filed and served.
Among the proposed corrections is the replacement of a reference to an Independent National Electoral Commission document as Form CF001 with Form EC9A.
The plaintiffs also want to provide further particulars of the alleged fraud, include a written deposition by Atiku and submit clearer copies of exhibits that were unavailable when the case was instituted.
However, Tinubu’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, opposed the application, arguing that the parties had already joined issues and that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to alter their case at this stage of the proceedings.
Former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Akin Olujimi, SAN, who represented the APC, also urged the court to reject the request.
Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr Alex Izinyon, equally opposed the proposed amendments, asking the judge to dismiss the application and proceed to hear the substantive suit.
Following the arguments, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until November 20 to determine whether the plaintiffs would be permitted to amend their originating summons.
Atiku and the ADC instituted the substantive action, seeking an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election over the NYSC discharge certificate submitted by the President to INEC.
The plaintiffs alleged that the certificate was forged and asked the court to direct INEC to remove Tinubu and the APC from its list of candidates and political parties for the election.
Their argument centres on the name appearing on the NYSC discharge certificate, which they claim bears the name Bola Adekunle rather than Bola Tinubu.
Tinubu and the APC have denied the allegations and urged the court to dismiss the suit.
In opposing the amendment application, the President’s legal team argued that the proposed changes went beyond correcting errors, claiming that they would introduce new facts, documents and reliefs into the case.
Tinubu’s lawyers also contended that the substantive suit was statute-barred. They argued that the cause of action arose on July 11, when the President’s name was submitted to INEC, while the suit was filed on August 14.
INEC also opposed the application, maintaining that the proposed amendments would introduce a new cause of action and amount to an attempt to remedy defects in the original suit after the constitutional deadline for filing pre-election cases had expired.
