President Bola Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have opposed an application by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to amend their suit challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
The defendants asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss the amendment request, arguing that the proposed changes go beyond correcting errors in the original case.
They maintained that Atiku and the ADC were attempting to introduce new facts, documents and reliefs into a case for which responses had already been filed.
The dispute is part of the legal battle over an alleged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate which Atiku claims was submitted to INEC by Tinubu.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, has Tinubu, the APC and INEC listed as the first, second and third defendants respectively.
Atiku and the ADC are seeking orders that would prevent Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election if the claims before the court are established.
The latest development followed proceedings before Justice Inyang Ekwo in Abuja on Monday, September 28, where the court was informed that all the parties had been served with the motion seeking permission to amend the originating summons.
Counsel to Atiku and the ADC, Silas Onu, told the court that responses had been received from the defendants.
He, however, pointed out that two separate responses appeared to have been filed on behalf of President Tinubu.
Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who appeared for Tinubu, clarified that the counter-affidavit he filed was on behalf of the President.
Hakeem Afolabi (SAN), representing the APC, explained that another response had been filed for the party but was mistakenly titled as a counter-affidavit for both the first and second defendants.
He therefore asked the court to allow the error to be corrected so that the document would properly reflect that it was filed on behalf of the APC.
The lawyers subsequently confirmed that they had been served with Atiku and ADC’s motion seeking to amend the originating summons.
Olanipekun, Afolabi and INEC’s counsel, Alex Izinyon (SAN), told the court that they had each responded to the application with counter-affidavits.
Justice Ekwo, however, indicated that he wanted the court to first determine whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their case before proceeding to the substantive suit.
The judge consequently adjourned the matter until October 13, 2026, for hearing of the amendment application.
Tinubu objects to proposed changes
In his counter-affidavit, Olanipekun argued that the proposed amendment could fundamentally alter the case already presented by Atiku and the ADC.
According to him, the plaintiffs claimed that the changes were mainly intended to correct typographical and descriptive errors.
He maintained, however, that the proposed amendment went much further.
“I also observed that the plaintiffs seek to introduce new documents through the affidavit, by substituting FORM CF001 for FORM EC9, while seeking to introduce entirely new paragraphs in the supporting affidavit to the originating summons.”
The President’s legal team also objected to the proposed introduction of additional facts relating to the alleged fraud.
“The entire facts deposed to in the affidavit in support of the motion on notice, including Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are untrue, misconceived or skewed to mislead this honourable court.”
Olanipekun argued that the proposed amendment was not simply a correction of errors but an attempt to reshape the plaintiffs’ original case.
“The entire facts deposed to in the affidavit in support of the motion on notice, including Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are untrue, misconceived or skewed to mislead this honourable court.”
The President also challenged the timing of the suit.
He argued that the plaintiffs’ cause of action arose when Tinubu’s documents were submitted to INEC and that the action was filed outside the constitutionally prescribed period.
According to the defence, Tinubu’s name and particulars were published by INEC on August 1, while Atiku filed the suit on August 14.
The President’s lawyers therefore argued that the 14-day period for instituting a pre-election matter had become an important issue in determining whether the case could proceed.
They further maintained that the Federal High Court’s Practice Direction could not override the time limit contained in the 1999 Constitution.
“The Practice Direction does not entitle any party to file or seek to amend their originating summons upon the expiration of the time prescribed by the Constitution for the institution of the action,” he added.
The defence also argued that the proposed amendment was an attempt to introduce a new relief and additional allegations that were not contained in the original originating summons.
It therefore urged the court not to permit an amendment that, in its view, would cure what it described as fundamental defects in the original process.
INEC also opposed the application.
The electoral commission, through Izinyon, argued that the proposed amendment could have the effect of introducing a fresh cause of action.
The commission maintained that Atiku and the ADC were seeking to introduce additional documents and reformulate aspects of their case after the expiration of the constitutional period for instituting a pre-election action.
INEC also raised the issue of the disputed reference to the electoral form.
Atiku and the ADC had originally referred to Form CF001 in their filings but later sought to replace the reference with Form EC9A.
The plaintiffs said the change was necessary because of an error in the description of the relevant INEC document.
They also requested permission to provide clearer copies of some exhibits and add further particulars concerning the alleged fraud.
INEC argued that granting the application could amount to allowing the plaintiffs to cure a jurisdictional defect after the expiration of the constitutional time limit.
Atiku and the ADC have defended their application, insisting that the proposed changes are necessary to properly present the case before the court.
They told the court that some errors were discovered after the original originating summons was filed.
One of the major corrections concerns the description of the INEC form attached to the disputed documents.
The plaintiffs said the document was wrongly described as Form CF001 and that it should instead be identified as Form EC9A.
They also want to provide clearer copies of documents referred to in the affidavit and include a written deposition by Atiku.
According to the plaintiffs, the additional information is necessary to specifically set out the particulars of the alleged fraud.
They maintain that the amendment would not introduce a new issue or additional relief and that it is intended to make the existing case clearer.
Atiku and the ADC had earlier alleged that an NYSC discharge certificate submitted to INEC bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, which they contend differs from the President’s name, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
They further alleged that the certificate was submitted in connection with the 2027 presidential election and questioned whether it was genuinely obtained by Tinubu.
Tinubu and the APC have rejected the allegations.
They maintain that no forged certificate was submitted to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
The defence has also argued that the NYSC has not disowned the certificate attributed to Tinubu.
The substantive allegation has not been determined by the court.
The court’s current consideration is focused on whether Atiku and the ADC should be permitted to amend their originating summons.