Court Fixes Date to Rule on Atiku’s Suit Against Tinubu’s Eligibility

The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 20 to deliver its ruling on an application by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to amend their suit seeking to disqualify President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the 2027 presidential election.

Justice Inyang Ekwo scheduled the ruling on Tuesday after lawyers representing Atiku, Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) presented their arguments for and against the proposed amendment.

Atiku and the ADC instituted the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, asking the court to compel INEC to remove Tinubu and the APC from the list of candidates and political parties for the 2027 presidential election.

The plaintiffs questioned the authenticity of Tinubu’s National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate, alleging that the APC submitted a forged document to INEC. They filed the case against Tinubu, the APC and the electoral commission.

However, after the defendants submitted their responses, Atiku and the ADC approached the court on September 10 seeking permission to amend their originating summons to address what they described as errors and omissions in their initial filings.

Moving the application, Atiku’s lawyer, Joseph Silas, told the court that the motion was dated September 4 and filed on September 10. He said the plaintiffs had also filed a reply on points of law in response to the defendants’ objections.

The applicants argued that they needed to correct the description of documents attached to their case, particularly the reference to Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A. They also sought to provide more details of the alleged fraud, submit Atiku’s written deposition and attach clearer copies of relevant exhibits.

They maintained that the proposed changes would not introduce a new issue or additional relief and urged the court to approve the amendment in the interest of justice.

Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), opposed the application, arguing that the court lacked the jurisdiction to grant it. He contended that the suit was statute-barred and that the proposed changes went beyond correcting errors, amounting instead to the introduction of a new case.

Olanipekun asked the court to dismiss the application. APC’s counsel, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, and INEC’s lawyer, Alex Izinyon, SAN, also opposed the request and urged the judge to reject it.

Tinubu and the APC had earlier argued that the substantive suit was incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to bring the action. They denied submitting a forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.

In their court filings, they also maintained that the NYSC had never disowned the discharge certificate attributed to Tinubu. Their position was that a claim of forgery should be supported by a disclaimer from the institution said to have issued the document.

The defendants further argued that the suit was filed outside the constitutionally prescribed period. According to their submissions, the cause of action arose when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC on July 11, while Atiku and the ADC filed their case on August 14.

Tinubu’s legal team also disputed the applicants’ claim that the proposed changes were merely corrections, arguing that they sought to introduce new documents, additional details and further reliefs that were not contained in the original suit.

INEC similarly challenged the competence of the action, citing alleged defects in the plaintiffs’ legal standing, the timing of the case and compliance with the Federal High Court’s pre-election practice directions.

The commission also argued that the proposed amendment would introduce a new cause of action or attempt to correct jurisdictional defects after the constitutionally prescribed 14-day period for filing pre-election cases had expired.

Atiku and the ADC, however, maintained that the changes were necessary to properly present their case and did not amount to initiating a fresh action.

After hearing all parties, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until November 20 for a ruling on whether the plaintiffs would be allowed to amend their originating summons.