The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday fixed Nov. 20 for ruling on an application filed by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), to amend his suit against President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC). Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date after Atiku’s counsel, Mr Joseph Silas, and defence lawyers adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the application. The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Atiku and ADC had, in the main suit, urged Justice Ekwo to disqualify President Tinubu and APC from the 2027 presidential election. They had questioned Tinubu’s National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by APC. The plaintiffs, who sued the president, APC and INEC as 1st to 3rd defendants in the originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, alleged that APC submitted the president’s forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC. They, therefore, prayed the court to compel INEC to remove Tinubu and APC’s names from the list of candidates and parties for the 2027 presidential poll. But after the defendants filed their counter affidavits, Atiku and APC, citing some irregularities, approached the court to seek an order to amend the suit. When the case was called on Tuesday, Silas informed the court that the matter was scheduled for hearing of the motion for amendment of their originating summons. Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, who appeared for President Tinubu; APC’s lawyer, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, and Mr Alex Izinyon, SAN, counsel to INEC, told the court they were ready to proceed with the hearing. Moving the motion to amend the suit, Silas said the application was dated Sept. 4 and filed on Sept. 10. He said upon being served with the defendants’ respective counter affidavits to their application for amendment, they responded through a reply on points of law. The lawyer, who adopted their processes, prayed the court to grant their reliefs. Responding, Olanipekun, in opposition to Silas’ submission, said a counter affidavit of nine paragraphs was filed on President’s behalf on Sept. 24. “We adopt these processes in urging my lord to dismiss this application as the court is without jurisdiction to grant this,” he said. The senior lawyer, who argued that Atiku’s application was statute-barred, said what the plaintiffs sought to do was to file a new action and not an amendment. He urged the court to dismiss it. Speaking in the same vein, Olujinmi, who appeared for APC, said their counter affidavit and a written address were filed on Sept. 12. He equally prayed the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ request. INEC’s lawyer, Izinyon, also backed Olanipekun and Olujinmi’s arguments. He said the commission, in opposition, filed a six-paragraph counter affidavit, a written address with an exhibit on Sept. 10. According to him, the last process filed is the additional authority filed by the 3rd defendant on Oct. 9. Izinyon prayed the court to dismiss Atiku and ADC’s application. After listening to their arguments, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until Nov. 20 for ruling. NAN reports that President Tinubu and APC, in their joint counter affidavit filed on Sept. 9 to the originating summons, prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety for being incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the case. They denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC either for the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections. The duo, through the APC’s Director of Legal Services, Mr Sanusi Samaila, averred that they did not submit any Form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or 2027 polls as claimed by the plaintiffs. They stated that the NYSC has never denied issuing the discharge certificate to the 1st defendant at the end of his service year. They submitted that it is a settled law that the evidence required to prove that a certificate is forged is a disclaimer from the institution that is said to have issued the certificate, citing a previous Supreme Court decision to back their argument. They urged the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the suit. INEC, in its preliminary objection filed on Sept. 7 by its lawyer, Izinyon, also challenged the competence of the suit on the grounds of statute-bar, want of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and abuse of court process. The commission argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) provision of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026. The electoral umpire equally challenged the impropriety of Reliefs 2 and 3 in Atiku and ADC’s originating summons, urgi
Don't miss out on breaking stories and in-depth articles.
