JUSTICE Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 20 for a ruling on an application by the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, seeking to amend his suit against President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) over an alleged forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate.
News Point Nigeria reports that Justice Ekwo fixed the date after counsel to Atiku, Joseph Silas, and lawyers representing the defendants adopted their respective processes and presented arguments for and against the application.
Read also: APC Slams Atiku For Addressing Tinubu As ‘Bola’, Says 2027 Campaign Will Focus On Achievements
Atiku and the ADC had, in the substantive suit, urged the court to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election, questioning the NYSC discharge certificate the party submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on behalf of the President.
The plaintiffs, who instituted the suit against Tinubu, the APC and INEC, alleged that the ruling party submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate to the electoral commission.
They consequently asked the court to compel INEC to remove the names of Tinubu and the APC from the list of candidates and political parties for the 2027 presidential election.
However, after the defendants filed their respective counter-affidavits challenging the suit, Atiku and the ADC approached the court to seek permission to amend their originating summons, citing what they described as certain irregularities in the processes initially filed.
Lawyers Clash Over Atiku’s Amendment Application
When the matter was called on Tuesday, Silas informed the court that the case was scheduled for the hearing of the motion seeking permission to amend the originating summons.
Counsel to President Tinubu, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), APC lawyer Akin Olujinmi (SAN), and INEC’s counsel, Alex Izinyon (SAN), informed the court that they were ready to proceed with the hearing.
Moving the application, Silas said the motion was dated September 4 and filed on September 10.
He explained that after being served with the defendants’ respective counter-affidavits opposing the application, the plaintiffs filed a reply on points of law in response.
Silas subsequently adopted the processes filed in support of the application and urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.
Opposing the application, Olanipekun said a nine-paragraph counter-affidavit had been filed on behalf of the President. He urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing that it lacked the jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought.
The senior lawyer maintained that Atiku’s application was statute-barred, insisting that the plaintiffs were attempting to institute a fresh action rather than make permissible amendments to their existing suit.
He consequently urged the court to dismiss the application.
Similarly, Olujinmi, who appeared for the APC, said the party had filed a counter-affidavit and written address on September 12.
He also urged the court to reject the plaintiffs’ request.
INEC’s lawyer, Izinyon, aligned himself with the arguments advanced by Olanipekun and Olujinmi.
He told the court that the commission had filed a six-paragraph counter-affidavit, a written address and an exhibit on September 10 in opposition to the application.
According to Izinyon, the latest process filed in the matter was an additional authority submitted by the third defendant on October 9.
He urged the court to dismiss the application filed by Atiku and the ADC.
After listening to the arguments from all parties, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until November 20 for ruling.
Tinubu, APC Deny Submitting Forged Certificate
In their joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9 in response to the originating summons, Tinubu and the APC urged the court to dismiss the substantive suit in its entirety, describing it as incompetent and arguing that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the action.
The President and the ruling party denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
Through the APC’s Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, they averred that they did not submit any Form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or 2027 elections, contrary to the plaintiffs’ claims.
They also maintained that the NYSC had never denied issuing the discharge certificate to Tinubu at the end of his service year.
Tinubu and the APC argued that the settled legal position was that the evidence required to establish that a certificate had been forged was a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued it.
They cited a previous Supreme Court decision in support of their argument and urged the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.
INEC Challenges Competence of Suit
INEC, in its preliminary objection filed through Izinyon, also challenged the competence of the suit on several grounds, including that it was statute-barred, that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi, that there was no reasonable cause of action and that the suit amounted to an abuse of court process.
The commission argued 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 umpire also challenged the propriety of Reliefs 2 and 3 in the plaintiffs’ originating summons and urged the court to dismiss the action.
In response to the defendants’ objections, Atiku and the ADC filed a motion on notice on September 10, seeking leave to amend their suit.
They said the application was brought pursuant to Paragraph 7(8) of the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice Directions, 2006, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
In the application, the plaintiffs sought two principal reliefs: an order granting them leave to amend their originating summons and an order deeming the amended originating summons filed alongside the application as properly filed.
Why Atiku and ADC Want to Amend the Suit
Setting out four grounds in support of their application, Atiku and the ADC said they instituted the suit on August 14, seeking the reliefs contained in their original originating summons.
Read also: Court Dismisses Aisha Achimugu’s ₦10bn Suit Against EFCC
They explained that after filing the originating summons, they discovered some errors, particularly in the nomenclature of the INEC forms attached to their affidavit, which had been referred to as Form CF001 instead of the then-current Form EC9A.
The plaintiffs also said there was a need to specifically set out the particulars of the alleged fraud in their supporting affidavit, including a written deposition by the first plaintiff, Atiku, and clearer copies of exhibits referenced in the processes.
According to them, some of the documents were not available to them when the suit was initially filed.
They said the proposed amendment would replace the existing attachments, which they described as inelegant, with clearer and more appropriate documents.
Atiku and the ADC maintained that no new issue had been introduced in the proposed amended originating summons and that they were not seeking any additional prayers.
They further argued that, as plaintiffs, they were entitled to amend their processes in the interest of justice.
Tinubu Accuses Atiku of Introducing New Reliefs
President Tinubu, however, opposed the application through a counter-affidavit filed on September 24.
The counter-affidavit was deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer at the law firm of Olanipekun, the President’s lead counsel.
Adoga disagreed with Atiku’s explanation for seeking the amendment, arguing that the proposed changes went beyond correcting errors in the description of documents.
He said that, contrary to the reliefs described in Atiku’s application, the proposed amended originating summons, marked as Exhibit P1, also sought to amend the questions for determination and the reliefs being requested from the court.
Adoga further alleged that Atiku was attempting to introduce an entirely new relief that was not contained in the original originating summons through which the action was initiated.
He also observed that the plaintiffs sought to introduce new documents through their supporting affidavit by substituting Form CF001 for Form EC9, while adding entirely new paragraphs to the affidavit accompanying the originating summons.
According to him, the proposed amendment would fundamentally alter the plaintiffs’ case as originally presented before the court.
Adoga described the motion as misconceived and challenged the accuracy of the facts presented in support of it.
He stated that the facts contained in paragraphs 3 to 13 of the affidavit supporting the motion on notice were untrue, misconceived or presented in a manner intended to mislead the court.
The litigation support officer also argued that the plaintiffs had made it clear that their purported cause of action was based on documents submitted by Tinubu to INEC.
Adoga further argued that Atiku’s substantive suit was statute-barred because it was filed on August 14, even though 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 all presidential candidates, together with their submitted certificates, on August 1, but maintained that the constitutional timeline for instituting the action had already begun from the earlier date.
According to him, 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.
He argued that the Practice Directions did not give any party the right to file or amend an originating summons after the expiration of the constitutionally prescribed period for instituting the action.
Adoga further contended that the proposed amendment went beyond correcting errors in the description of documents.
He argued that the plaintiffs’ attempt to set out the particulars of the alleged fraud in their supporting affidavit amounted to an admission that the original originating summons contained no such particulars, thereby rendering it incompetent.
He maintained that an incompetent originating process could not be amended.
The officer also stated that the proposed amended originating summons showed that the plaintiffs were seeking an additional prayer, contrary to their claim that no new relief was being introduced.
He consequently urged the court to dismiss the motion for amendment in the interest of justice.
The APC equally opposed Atiku and the ADC’s application to amend the suit, joining the President in urging the court to reject the proposed changes.
INEC also filed a counter-affidavit opposing the application.
In its response to the plaintiffs’ motion on notice, filed on September 10, the commission argued that its preliminary objection, which had been filed on September 7 and served on the plaintiffs, remained pending and undetermined.
Mendie Akpan, a litigation secretary at the law firm of Alex Izinyon and Company, who deposed to the commission’s counter-affidavit, argued that Atiku’s motion and the proposed amended originating summons sought to substitute or introduce a new cause of action.
She further submitted that the application sought to introduce a written deposition that was not filed within the constitutionally prescribed period, reformulate the reliefs being sought and resolve the confusion surrounding the references to Form CF001 and Form EC9.
According to Akpan, granting the proposed amendment would have the effect of introducing a fresh or different cause of action.
Alternatively, she argued that it would effectively cure a jurisdictional defect after the expiration of the 14-day period prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution for instituting a pre-election suit.
The commission therefore urged the court to reject the application, maintaining its position that the substantive suit was incompetent.
With the parties having presented their arguments for and against the proposed amendments, Justice Ekwo fixed November 20 to deliver his ruling on whether Atiku and the ADC should be permitted to amend their originating summons.
The ruling will determine whether the plaintiffs can proceed with their proposed amended processes in the suit seeking Tinubu’s and the APC’s disqualification from the 2027 presidential election over the disputed NYSC certificate.
