The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed October 13 for hearing of a motion by Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), seeking to amend his suit against President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date on Monday to allow parties to regularise their processes.
At the resumed hearing, Joseph Silas, counsel to Atiku and the ADC, told the court that he had received responses from other respondents but was yet to receive Tinubu’s counter-affidavit to the application.
Wole Olanipekun, SAN, counsel to Tinubu, however, told the court that the counter-affidavit had been served on the plaintiffs on September 24 and acknowledged by their counsel’s office.
Justice Ekwo confirmed the proof of service filed by Olanipekun before adjourning the matter to October 13 for hearing of the application to amend the originating summons.
They alleged that the APC submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC and asked the court to compel the electoral commission to remove Tinubu and the APC from the list of presidential candidates and parties for the 2027 election.
Tinubu and the APC denied the allegation in a joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9 and urged the court to dismiss the suit.
They argued that the suit was incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute it.
The defendants also denied submitting a forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
According to the defendants, they did not submit Form CF001 to INEC for either election as alleged by the plaintiffs. They also said the NYSC had never denied issuing the discharge certificate to Tinubu after his service year.
The defendants further argued that proof of forgery of a certificate requires a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued it, citing a Supreme Court decision in support of their position.
INEC also challenged the competence of the suit in a preliminary objection filed on September 7 through its counsel, Alex Izinyon, SAN.
The commission cited statute bar, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and abuse of court process.
INEC also argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the written deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.
The commission further challenged Reliefs 2 and 3 in the originating summons and urged the court to dismiss the suit.
Atiku and the ADC filed their application to amend the suit on September 10.
They said the proposed amendment was intended to correct errors in the description of documents attached to their affidavit, including the reference to Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A.
They also sought to include particulars of the alleged fraud, a written deposition by Atiku and clearer copies of exhibits that were not available when the suit was initially filed.
The plaintiffs maintained that the amendment would not introduce a new issue or additional relief.
Tinubu opposed the application in a counter-affidavit filed on September 24.
In the affidavit, deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in the law firm of Olanipekun, the president argued that the proposed amendment went beyond correcting errors in the description of documents.
Adoga said the plaintiffs sought to amend the questions for determination and the reliefs sought, introduce new documents and add paragraphs to the supporting affidavit.
He argued that the proposed amendment would alter the plaintiffs’ case and contended that the substantive suit was statute-barred.
According to him, the cause of action arose on July 11, when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC, while Atiku filed the suit on August 14.
He argued that the time limit for instituting the action is prescribed by the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and cannot be extended by the court’s Practice Directions.
Adoga also argued that the attempt to introduce particulars of alleged fraud showed that the original originating summons did not contain those particulars and was therefore incompetent.
He urged the court to dismiss the application.
The APC also opposed the application to amend the suit.
INEC similarly opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed amendment would introduce a new cause of action or cure a jurisdictional defect after the constitutional deadline for filing a pre-election suit had expired.
Mendie Akpan, a litigation secretary in the law firm of Alex Izinyon and Co., who deposed to INEC’s counter-affidavit, said the proposed amendment sought to introduce a written deposition filed outside the constitutionally prescribed period, reformulate the reliefs and address the reference to Form CF001 and Form EC9A.
She argued that granting the application would amount to introducing a fresh cause of action or curing 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.