The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 20, 2026, to rule on an application by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) seeking permission to amend their suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date on Tuesday after lawyers representing Atiku and the ADC, Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) presented arguments for and against the proposed amendment.
Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election over allegations concerning the president’s National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to INEC.
However, Tinubu, the APC and INEC have opposed the amendment, arguing that the plaintiffs are attempting to introduce new elements into the case and cure defects in a suit they contend is already incompetent and statute-barred.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Atiku’s counsel, Joseph Silas, told the court that the application for amendment was dated September 4 and filed on September 10.
Silas said the plaintiffs filed a reply on points of law after receiving the defendants’ counter-affidavits and urged the court to grant the application.
But Tinubu’s lead counsel, Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), urged Justice Ekwo to dismiss the application, arguing that the court lacked the jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought.
Olanipekun maintained that the application was statute-barred and that the proposed changes amounted to filing a fresh action rather than making corrections to the existing suit.
APC’s counsel, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, also urged the court to reject the application, while INEC’s lawyer, Alex Izinyon, SAN, aligned himself with the arguments advanced by the president and the ruling party.
Izinyon told the court that INEC had filed a six-paragraph counter-affidavit, a written address and an exhibit in opposition to the application. He also drew attention to an additional authority filed by the commission on October 9.
After hearing the parties, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until November 20 for a ruling on whether Atiku and the ADC should be allowed to amend their originating summons.
The dispute over the proposed amendment centres on whether the plaintiffs are merely correcting errors in their original court documents or attempting to introduce a substantially different case after the constitutionally prescribed deadline for filing pre-election suits.
In their application, Atiku and the ADC said they discovered errors in the documents attached to their originating summons, including the description of an INEC form as Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A.
They also sought to provide clearer copies of exhibits, include a written deposition by Atiku and set out specific particulars of the alleged fraud in their supporting affidavit.
The plaintiffs maintained that the proposed amendment would not introduce a new issue or additional prayers and argued that they were entitled to make the changes in the interest of justice.
Tinubu, however, disputed that position in a counter-affidavit filed on September 24.
The president, through Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in Olanipekun’s law firm, alleged that the proposed amendment went beyond correcting errors in the description of documents.
Adoga argued that the plaintiffs sought to amend the questions for determination and the reliefs requested from the court, introduce new paragraphs into their supporting affidavit and substitute the documents attached to the original process.
He further contended that the proposed changes would fundamentally alter the plaintiffs’ case.
According to the president’s defence, Atiku’s attempt to introduce particulars of the alleged fraud showed that the original originating summons lacked those particulars and was therefore incompetent.
The defence also argued that the suit was statute-barred because the plaintiffs filed it on August 14, although the cause of action they were challenging allegedly arose on July 11, when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC.
Adoga maintained that the constitutional deadline for instituting a pre-election action could not be extended through the court’s practice directions.
He therefore urged the court to dismiss the application.
The APC and INEC have also opposed the amendment, maintaining that the proposed changes would introduce a new cause of action or attempt to cure jurisdictional defects after the expiration of the constitutionally prescribed period.
INEC argued that the application sought to introduce a written deposition that was not filed within the required period, reformulate the plaintiffs’ reliefs and resolve the dispute surrounding the identification of the relevant electoral form.
The commission also maintained that its preliminary objection to the substantive suit remained pending before the court.
In its objection, INEC challenged the competence of the suit on grounds including statute of limitation, lack of locus standi, absence of a reasonable cause of action and alleged abuse of court process.
The commission further argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the written-deposition requirement under the Federal High Court’s Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.
It also challenged the propriety of some of the reliefs sought by Atiku and the ADC.
In their joint counter-affidavit to the substantive suit, Tinubu and the APC denied submitting a forged NYSC discharge certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
They also denied submitting Form CF001 to the electoral commission for either election, contrary to the plaintiffs’ claims.
The president and the APC argued that the NYSC had never denied issuing Tinubu a discharge certificate at the end of his service year.
They further contended that a claim of certificate forgery should be supported by a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued the document, citing a Supreme Court decision in support of their position.
The defendants urged the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the suit in its entirety, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the action.
Atiku and the ADC filed the substantive suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, on August 14, seeking an order compelling INEC to remove Tinubu and the APC from the list of candidates and political parties for the 2027 presidential election.
