The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday fixed Oct. 13 for hearing of an application filed by Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of African Democratic Congress, ADC, seeking to amend his suit against President Bola Tinubu and All Progressives Congress, APC.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date to allow parties in the suit regularise their processes.
When the case was called on Monday, Joseph Silas, who appeared for Atiku and ADC, told the court that though he had received responses from other respondents, he was yet to get President Tinubu’s counter affidavit to their motion to amend the suit.
However, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, lawyer to the president, informed the court that their counter affidavit was served on the plaintiffs on Sept. 24 and acknowledged by the office of the plaintiffs’ counsel.
Justice Ekwo equally confirmed the proof of service filed by Olanipekun.
The judge consequently adjourned the matter until Oct. 13 for hearing of the motion to amend the originating summons filed by Atiku and ADC.
The NAN reports that Atiku and ADC had, in the main suit, urged Justice Inyang Ekwo to disqualify President Tinubu and APC from the 2027 presidential election.
They had questioned Tinubu’s National Youth Service Corps, NYSC, discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by APC.
The plaintiffs, who sued the president, APC and INEC as 1st to 3rd defendants in the originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, alleged that APC submitted the president’s forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC.
They, therefore, prayed the court to compel INEC to remove Tinubu and APC’s names from the list of candidates and parties for the presidential poll.
President Tinubu and APC, in their joint counter affidavit filed on Sept. 9, prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirty for being incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the case.
They denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC either for the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
The duo, through the APC’s Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, averred that they did not submit any Form CF001 to INEC for 2023 or 2027 poll as claimed by the plaintiffs.
They stated that the NYSC has never denied issuing the discharge certificate to the 1st defendant at the end of his service year.
They submitted that it is a settied law that the evidence required to prove that a certificate is forged is a disclaimer from the institution that is said to have issued the certificate, citing a previous Supreme Court decision to back their argument.
They urged the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.
INEC, in its preliminary objection filed on Sept. 7 by its lawyer, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, also challenged the competence of the suit on the grounds of statute-bar, want of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and abuse of court process.
The commission argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) provision of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.
The electoral umpire equally challenged the impropriety of Reliefs 2 and 3 in Atiku and ADC’s originating summons, urging the court to dismiss the suit.
Atiku and ADC, however, approached the court with a motion on notice on Sept. 10, seeking an amendment to the suit.