ABUJA, Nigeria — 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) to amend their suit seeking the disqualification of President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date after lawyers representing Atiku and the ADC, Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) presented their arguments for and against the proposed amendment.
The application is a key procedural step in the legal dispute over Tinubu’s National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate, which the plaintiffs have challenged in their suit.
Atiku and the ADC allege that the certificate submitted to INEC by the APC on Tinubu’s behalf was forged. They are asking the court to order the electoral commission to remove the president and the APC from the list of candidates and parties for the 2027 presidential election.
Tinubu, the APC and INEC have opposed the plaintiffs’ application to amend the suit, arguing that it is legally defective and cannot cure alleged jurisdictional problems with the original case.
Atiku seeks to correct documents and expand affidavit
Moving the application, Atiku’s counsel, Joseph Silas, told the court that the motion was dated September 4 and filed on September 10. He urged Justice Ekwo to grant the requested amendments.
Silas said the plaintiffs had identified errors in their originating summons, particularly the description of INEC forms attached to their supporting affidavit.
According to the plaintiffs, the documents were referred to as Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A. They also sought to provide more detailed particulars of the alleged fraud, include Atiku’s written deposition and attach clearer copies of documents referenced in the suit.
Atiku and the ADC maintained that the proposed changes were necessary in the interest of justice and would not introduce new issues or additional prayers.
They asked the court for permission to amend their originating summons and deem the amended process properly filed.
Tinubu, APC challenge court’s jurisdiction
Tinubu’s counsel, Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing that the proposed amendment went beyond correcting errors and would fundamentally alter the plaintiffs’ case.
Olanipekun said the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the request because the substantive action was statute-barred.
He argued that the plaintiffs were effectively attempting to institute a new action after the constitutionally prescribed period had expired.
The president’s legal team also disputed the claim that the proposed changes were merely corrections to document descriptions, contending that the amended originating summons sought to introduce new questions for determination, additional affidavit paragraphs and a fresh relief.
The APC, represented by Akin Olujinmi, SAN, also urged the court to reject the application. INEC’s counsel, Alex Izinyon, SAN, adopted a similar position.
Dispute centres on constitutional deadline
A central issue in the dispute is whether the plaintiffs can amend their originating summons after the expiration of the constitutional deadline for instituting a pre-election case.
In its opposition, Tinubu’s legal team argued that the cause of action arose on July 11, when his name was submitted to INEC, while the substantive suit was filed on August 14.
The defence maintained that the deadline for instituting pre-election litigation is governed by the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and cannot be extended through the Federal High Court’s practice directions.
Tinubu’s lawyers further argued that the plaintiffs’ request to introduce particulars of the alleged fraud demonstrated that the original suit lacked essential details and was therefore incompetent from the outset.
They contended that an incompetent originating process could not be repaired through an amendment filed after the constitutional time limit.
INEC also challenged the application, arguing that the proposed changes would introduce a new cause of action or attempt to cure a jurisdictional defect after the expiration of the 14-day period stipulated under Section 285(9) of the Constitution for filing pre-election suits.
The commission said its preliminary objection to the substantive case remained pending and urged the court to dismiss the amendment application.
Parties also contest substantive eligibility suit
Beyond the amendment dispute, Tinubu and the APC have asked the court to dismiss the substantive suit on grounds including lack of jurisdiction, alleged absence of legal standing and the plaintiffs’ failure to establish a competent cause of action.
In their response to the original suit, the president and the APC denied submitting a forged NYSC certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
They also disputed the plaintiffs’ account of the electoral documents submitted to the commission and argued that the NYSC had never denied issuing Tinubu’s discharge certificate.
The defendants cited the legal principle that an allegation of certificate forgery should be supported by evidence from the institution said to have issued the document, including a formal disclaimer where applicable.
INEC separately challenged the suit on grounds of alleged non-compliance with procedural requirements, lack of locus standi, limitation of time, absence of a reasonable cause of action and abuse of court process.
The commission also questioned the propriety of some of the reliefs sought by Atiku and the ADC.
The court’s November 20 ruling will determine whether the plaintiffs can proceed with their proposed amendments. It will not, by itself, determine the truth of the forgery allegation or resolve the substantive question of Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election.
The outcome of the application could, however, shape the next stage of the litigation by determining the form in which Atik
