Court to Decide on Atiku's Request to Change Suit Against Tinubu and APC

The Federal High Court in Abuja has set 20 November for a decision on Atiku Abubakar's request to amend his case. The case challenges President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) over their eligibility for the 2027 presidential election.

Atiku, the presidential candidate for the African Democratic Congress (ADC), started the suit in August. He recently asked to amend the case to fix some mistakes and add clearer evidence.

But Tinubu and the APC opposed this amendment. They claimed that allowing it would turn the case into a completely new one, which is not allowed under the law.

On Tuesday, Judge Inyang Ekwo scheduled the ruling after hearing arguments from both sides. Atiku's lawyer, Joseph Silas, and the defence lawyers shared their views on whether the amendment should be allowed.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Atiku and the ADC want the court to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from running in the 2027 election. This election is set to take place alongside the national assembly polls on 16 January 2027.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is also named as a co-defendant in this case, which is marked as FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026.

Atiku and the ADC questioned the validity of Tinubu's National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate. They allege that the APC submitted a fake certificate to INEC to support Tinubu's nomination as the party's presidential candidate.

They argue that this should lead to Tinubu and the APC being disqualified from the upcoming election. They want the court to order INEC to take their names off the candidate list for the 2027 presidential election.

After the defendants submitted counter-affidavits and other documents opposing the suit, Atiku and the ADC asked the court for permission to amend their case.

During the hearing, Silas presented their application filed on 10 September. He urged the court to allow the proposed changes.

In response, Tinubu's lawyer, Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), presented a counter-affidavit filed on 24 September. He argued that the application should be dismissed as it was barred by law. He stated that the plaintiffs were trying to file a new case rather than amending the original one.

APC's lawyer, Akin Olujinmi, another SAN, echoed Olanipekun's request for the court to dismiss the suit. He also adopted the counter-affidavit and a written address submitted on 12 September against the plaintiffs' application.

INEC's lawyer, Alex Izinyon, also a SAN, called for the dismissal of the amendment application. He referenced a six-paragraph counter-affidavit and a written address with an exhibit filed on 10 September opposing the plaintiffs' request.

After hearing the arguments from all parties, Judge Ekwo postponed the matter until 20 November for a ruling.

PREMIUM TIMES reported earlier that Atiku and the ADC filed the amendment application to correct errors, provide clearer copies of exhibits, and detail their claim of an allegedly fake NYSC certificate submitted to INEC for Tinubu’s candidacy.

They also asked the court to accept the amended summons as properly filed. This application is based on Paragraph 7(8) of the Federal High Court (Pre-election) Practice Directions 2006 and the court's inherent powers.

The plaintiffs said they filed the suit on 14 August but later found mistakes in the filed documents.

One mistake was calling INEC’s Form EC9A as Form CF001. Form EC9A is the affidavit of personal particulars used by INEC for candidates to submit their credentials. This replaced the older Form CF001.

They also wanted to clearly outline their fraud claims against Tinubu. They planned to include a written statement by Atiku and attach clearer copies of exhibits that were not available when they filed the suit.

The plaintiffs argued that the changes would not create new issues or new requests. They insisted that the amendments were essential to present their case properly and that they had the right to make these changes in the interest of justice.

Tinubu countered this in a counter-affidavit filed on 24 September. He claimed Atiku was seeking to change the questions and requests in the case.

Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in Olanipekun’s firm, pointed out that Atiku was trying to introduce a completely new request, which was not part of the original filing.

He claimed that the changes aimed to alter the entire case presented in court. Adoga said the motion was misguided. He stated that the facts in the affidavit supporting the motion were untrue or misleading.

Adoga pointed out that Atiku’s case was barred by law since it was filed after the timeline had passed. He explained that the constitutional timeline governs the filing of such actions, not the court's practice directions.

He said the proposed changes went beyond correcting document descriptions, as they included new claims of fraud that had not been in the original suit. He asked the court to reject the amendment request.

APC also opposed the motion for amendment. NAN earlier reported that INEC had also challenged Atiku’s attempt to amend the suit.

INEC, in its counter-affidavit filed on 10 September, claimed that the plaintiffs' motion was seeking to introduce a new cause of action. They argued that the amendment was beyond the time allowed by the law and would effectively change the nature of the case.

Mendie Akpan, a litigation secretary in Izinyon’s law firm, also argued that the proposed changes were unacceptable since they were not filed within the required time frame.

NAN reports that Tinubu and APC filed a joint counter-affidavit on 9 September against the main suit. They asked for a total dismissal of the suit, claiming it was incompetent and that the plaintiffs had no legal right to bring it.

On the merit of the case, the defendants denied the claims that a forged certificate was submitted to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 elections. They stated that they did not submit any Form CF001 as alleged by the plaintiffs.

They maintained that the NYSC has not denied issuing the discharge certificate to Tinubu after his service year. They argued that legal proof of forgery requires a disclaimer from the institution that issued the certificate, backing their claim with a previous Supreme Court ruling.

They urged the court to accept their preliminary objection and dismiss the suit. INEC also challenged the case in its preliminary objection filed on 7 September, claiming it was barred by law and that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to file it.

The electoral body stated there was no valid cause of action and described the suit as an abuse of court process. They also highlighted that the plaintiffs did not follow the necessary requirements for filing.

Atiku and ADC submitted a motion on notice on 10 September, asking to amend the suit. They argued for the amendment based on Paragraph 7(8) of the FHC (Pre-election) Practice Directions, 2006 and the court's inherent powers.

They provided four reasons why their request should be granted. The plaintiffs stated that they filed the original suit on 14 August and later noticed mistakes, particularly regarding the INEC forms.

They also emphasized the need to clearly outline their fraud allegations, including Atiku's written statement and clearer copies of exhibits that were not available at the time of filing.

They insisted that the changes did not introduce new issues or requests. They maintained that they were entitled to amend the case for justice to prevail. Any party unhappy with the court's decision can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.