The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed October 13, 2026, for hearing an application by the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, and his party, seeking to amend their suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date on Monday after lawyers representing the parties appeared before the court to regularise their processes in the case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress from the 2027 presidential election over allegations surrounding a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC ) discharge certificate allegedly submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The plaintiffs had filed a motion seeking leave to amend their originating summons after identifying what they described as errors and omissions in their initial court processes.
At Monday’s proceedings, counsel to Atiku and ADC, Joseph Silas, told the court that while he had received responses from the other defendants, he had yet to receive Tinubu’s counter affidavit opposing the application.
However, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, counsel to Tinubu, disagreed, informing the court that the president’s counter affidavit had been served on the plaintiffs on September 24.
Olanipekun also presented proof of service, which Justice Ekwo confirmed.
The judge subsequently adjourned the matter to October 13 for hearing of the motion seeking permission to amend the originating summons.
Atiku and ADC had, in their substantive suit, alleged that the APC submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate belonging to Tinubu to INEC.
They are asking the court to compel INEC to remove Tinubu’s name and that of the APC from the list of presidential candidates and political parties for the 2027 election.
Tinubu and the APC have denied the allegation and urged the court to dismiss the case.
In their joint counter affidavit, they argued that the suit was incompetent and that Atiku and ADC lacked the legal right to institute it. They also denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC in connection with either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
The defendants further maintained that the NYSC had never denied issuing the discharge certificate to Tinubu at the end of his service.
They argued that evidence of forgery would require a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued the document, relying on a previous Supreme Court decision in support of their position.
INEC has also challenged the competence of the suit.
In its preliminary objection, the electoral commission raised issues including alleged statute-bar, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and alleged abuse of court process.
The commission also accused the plaintiffs of failing to comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement under the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions.
Atiku and ADC subsequently filed the motion seeking to amend their originating summons.
They said the proposed amendments were necessary after discovering errors in the description of documents attached to their affidavit, particularly the reference to an INEC Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A.
The plaintiffs also said they needed to provide further particulars of the alleged fraud, including a written deposition by Atiku and clearer copies of some exhibits which were not available when the original suit was filed.
They maintained that the amendments would not introduce a new issue or additional relief and were necessary in the interest of justice.
Tinubu, however, opposed the application, arguing that the proposed amendments went beyond correcting errors.
In his counter affidavit, filed through his legal team, the president contended that Atiku and ADC were seeking to alter the questions for determination and introduce a new relief that was not contained in the original originating summons.
Tinubu’s legal team also argued that the proposed amendments sought to introduce new documents and additional paragraphs into the supporting affidavit.
The president further challenged the timing of the suit, arguing that the cause of action arose when his name was submitted to INEC and that the action was instituted outside the constitutionally prescribed period.
He maintained that the Federal High Court’s Practice Directions could not extend the constitutional time limit for commencing a pre-election matter.
According to Tinubu’s legal team, an originating process that was incompetent from the outset could not be cured through an amendment after the expiration of the prescribed period.
INEC also opposed the proposed amendment, arguing that it would effectively introduce a fresh cause of action and attempt to cure what it described as jurisdictional defects after the expiration of the 14-day period provided under Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution for pre-election cases.