Court Fixes Date to Hear Atiku’s Motion Against Tinubu, APC

The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed October 13, 2026, for the hearing of an application by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress, ADC, seeking permission to amend their suit against President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress, APC.

Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the matter on Monday to give the parties time to regularise their court processes before the application is heard.

At the resumed proceedings, counsel representing Atiku and the ADC, Joseph Silas, told the court that responses had been received from some of the defendants but that the plaintiffs had not received Tinubu’s counter affidavit to the application seeking to amend the suit.

Counsel to the President, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, disagreed, informing the court that Tinubu’s counter affidavit had been served on the plaintiffs on September 24. The court also confirmed that proof of service had been filed.

Justice Ekwo thereafter adjourned the matter until October 13 for hearing of the motion seeking leave to amend the originating summons.

Atiku and the ADC are challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election in the substantive case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026. The plaintiffs have also joined the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, in the suit.

The case centres on an NYSC discharge certificate allegedly submitted to INEC on behalf of Tinubu. Atiku and the ADC alleged that the document was forged and asked the court to order INEC to remove Tinubu and the APC from the list of presidential candidates and participating political parties for the 2027 election.

Tinubu and the APC have denied the allegation and asked the court to dismiss the case.

In their joint counter affidavit filed on September 9, the President and the APC argued that the suit was incompetent and that Atiku and the ADC lacked the legal basis to institute it. They also denied submitting any forged NYSC certificate to INEC in connection with either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.

The defendants maintained that the NYSC had not disowned the discharge certificate attributed to Tinubu. Their legal team argued that establishing forgery would require evidence from the institution said to have issued the document.

INEC has also challenged the case through a preliminary objection filed on September 7.

The electoral commission raised several objections, including claims that the suit was filed outside the time allowed by law, that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing and that the case did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

INEC also alleged abuse of court process and argued that Atiku and the ADC did not comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement under the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.

The commission further challenged some of the reliefs contained in the original originating summons and urged the court to dismiss the suit.

In response, Atiku and the ADC filed a motion on September 10 asking the court for permission to amend their originating summons. They also asked the court to recognise the proposed amended process as properly filed.

The applicants said the proposed changes were necessary because they discovered errors in the description of some documents attached to the original suit. One of the issues involved the identification of an INEC form, which they said had been wrongly described as Form CF001 rather than Form EC9A.

They also sought to provide clearer copies of some exhibits and add further details concerning the allegations of fraud. The proposed amendment included a written deposition by Atiku, which the applicants said was not available when the original case was filed.

Atiku and the ADC maintained that the changes were intended to correct errors and provide additional information without introducing a new issue or seeking fresh reliefs from the court.

Tinubu, however, opposed the application in a counter affidavit filed on September 24.

The President’s legal team argued that the proposed amendment went beyond correcting errors and would alter the substance of the case. The defence claimed that the amended process sought to introduce a new relief, additional documents and new paragraphs dealing with the allegations made against the President.

Tinubu’s lawyers also argued that the suit itself was filed outside the constitutionally prescribed period. They contended that the cause of action arose on July 11, when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC, while the case was not filed until August 14.

The defence further argued that the publication of the details of presidential candidates and their submitted documents by INEC on August 1 did not extend the period allowed for filing a pre-election case.

Tinubu’s legal team also questioned Atiku’s attempt to introduce details of the alleged fraud through the amendment, arguing that the absence of such particulars from the original originating summons rendered the initial process defective.

The President’s lawyers therefore asked the court to reject the motion, maintaining that an allegedly incompetent originating process could not be corrected through the proposed amendment.

The APC has also opposed Atiku’s request to amend the case.

INEC filed a separate counter affidavit against the application, arguing that the proposed changes could introduce a new cause of action rather than simply correct errors in the original filing.

The electoral commission also challenged the attempt to introduce a written deposition after the constitutionally prescribed period, as well as the proposed changes to the reliefs and the description of the relevant INEC form.

INEC further argued that allowing the amendment could amount to curing a jurisdictional defect after the expiration of the 14-day period provided by Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution for the filing of pre-election cases.

The court is expected to determine at the October 13 hearing whether Atiku and the ADC should be allowed to amend their originating summons and proceed with the case in its proposed form.