The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Tuesday fixed November 20 for ruling on an application filed by Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, to amend his suit against President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress.

Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date after Mr Atiku’s counsel, Joseph Silas, and defence lawyers adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the application. In the main suit, Mr Abubakar and ADC urged the court to disqualify Mr Tinubu and APC from the 2027 presidential election.

They questioned Mr Tinubu’s National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate, which APC submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission.

The plaintiffs, who sued the president, APC and INEC as first to third 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 Mr Tinubu’s and APC’s names from the list of candidates and parties for the 2027 presidential poll.

But after the defendants filed their counter-affidavits, Mr Abubakar and the APC, citing irregularities, approached the court to seek an order to amend the suit.

When the case was called on Tuesday, Mr Silas informed the court that the matter was scheduled for the hearing of the motion to amend their originating summons. Wole Olanipekun (who appeared for Mr Tinubu), APC’s lawyer, Akin Olujinmi, and Alex Izinyon, counsel to INEC, told the court they were ready to proceed.

Moving the motion to amend the suit, Mr Silas said the application was dated September 4 and filed on September 10. He said that, upon being served with the defendants’ respective counter-affidavits to their application for amendment, they responded with a reply on points of law. The lawyer, who adopted their processes, urged the court to grant their reliefs.

Responding, Mr Olanipekun, opposing Mr Silas’ submission, said a nine-paragraph counter affidavit was filed on the president’s behalf on September 24.

“We adopt these processes in urging my lord to dismiss this application, as the court is without jurisdiction to grant this,” he said.

The senior lawyer, who argued that Mr Abubakar’s application was statute-barred, said the plaintiffs sought to file a new action, not an amendment. He urged the court to dismiss it.

Mr Olujinmi, who appeared for APC, said their counter-affidavit and written address were filed on September 12 and urged the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ request.

INEC’s lawyer, Mr Izinyon, backed Messrs Olanipekun and Olujinmi’s arguments, stating the commission, in opposition, filed a six-paragraph counter-affidavit and a written address with an exhibit on September 10. According to him, the last process filed is the additional authority filed by the third defendant on October  9. Mr Izinyon asked the court to dismiss Mr Abubakar’s and ADC’s application.

After hearing their arguments, the judge adjourned the matter until November 20 for a ruling.

Mr Tinubu and the APC, in their joint counter affidavit filed on September 9 to the originating summons, prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety as incompetent and to hold that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the case.

They denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC for either 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 the 2023 or 2027 polls, as the plaintiffs claimed. They stated that the NYSC has never denied issuing the discharge certificate to the first defendant at the end of his service year.

They submitted that it is a settled 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 September 7 by its lawyer, Mr Izinyon, 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. It argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement under Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.

INEC challenged the impropriety of the second and third reliefs in Mr Abubakar and ADC’s originating summons, urging the court to dismiss the suit.

Mr Abubakar and ADC, however, approached the court with a motion on notice on September 10, seeking to amend the suit.

They said the application was brought pursuant to Paragraph 7(8) of the FHC (Pre-election) Practice Directions, 2006, and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. In the two reliefs, they sought an order granting leave to them to amend their originating summons.

They also asked the court for an order deeming the amended originating summons filed on their application as a properly filed amended originating summons. Giving four grounds why their application should be granted, the applicants said they filed the suit on August 14, seeking the reliefs contained in the originating summons.

Mr Abubakar and ADC said that after filing the originating summons, they noticed a few errors, especially in the nomenclature of the INEC forms attached to their affidavit, which was referred to as Form CF001, instead of the now Form EC9A.

They also said they needed to set out the particulars of the alleged fraud in their affidavit, including a written deposition of the first plaintiff (Mr Abubakar), and attach clearer copies of the exhibits referred to but not available to the plaintiffs at the time of filing the suit.

They said these would replace “the one presently attached, but is inelegant”, and that no new issue had been added to the amended originating summons and no additional prayers sought. Besides, they submitted that as plaintiffs, they “are entitled to make this amendment in the interest of justice”.

But Mr Tinubu, in a counter-affidavit filed on September 24, opposed the application to amend the suit. The president, in the counter-affidavit deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in the law firm of Mr Olanipekun, and his lead counsel, disagreed with Mr Abubakar’s submission.

Mr Adoga said, contrary to the reliefs sought by Mr Abubakar in his amended originating summons marked as Exhibit ‘P1’, he noticed that the ADC presidential candidate also sought to amend the questions for determination and reliefs sought.

The officer said he observed that Atiku sought to introduce an entirely new relief, which was not sought in the originating summons, with which the action was initiated.

“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,” he said.

According to him, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs essentially attempts to alter the entire case as presented before this honourable court.

Mr Adoga submitted that the said motion was misconceived, pointing out that “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 officer said he observed that the plaintiffs made it clear that their purported cause of action is predicated on the documents submitted by the president to INEC.

He, however, argued that Mr Abubakar’s substantive suit is statute-barred, having been filed on August 14 while the cause of action which he is challenging arose on July 11 when Mr Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC, even though the commission published the particulars of all presidential candidates with their submitted certificates on August 1.

According to him, the timeline for instituting actions is prescribed by the 1999 Constitution (as amended), not the Practice Direction of this Honourable Court.

“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.

He argued that contrary to  Mr Abubakar’s reliefs, the amendment sought more than “to correct errors of description of documents”.

“Further to the above, the attempt to ‘set out the particulars of fraud in the affidavit’ is an admission to the fact that the previously filed originating summons contained no such particulars, thus rendering the same incompetent,” Mr Adoga said.

Mr Adoga submitted that an incompetent originating process cannot be amended. He stated further that the proposed amended originating summons clearly indicated that an additional prayer is being sought therein.

Mr Adoga prayed the court to dismiss the motion for amendment in the interest of justice. APC opposed the motion to amend the suit. INEC had also opposed Mr Atiku’s motion to amend the suit.

In a counter-affidavit to the plaintiffs’ motion on notice for amendment filed on September 10, INEC said its preliminary objection, filed on September 7 and served on the plaintiffs, remains pending and undetermined.

Mendie Akpan, a litigation secretary at Alex Izinyon & Co, who deposed to the counter affidavit, argued that Mr Abubakar’s motion to amend and the proposed amended originating summons seek to substitute or introduce a new cause of action. She further submitted that the motion sought to attach a written deposition not filed within the constitutionally prescribed period, reformulate reliefs and cure the CF001/EC9 confusion.

The lawyer argued that, if granted, the proposed amendment would introduce a fresh or different cause of action.

Alternatively, she said it would cure a jurisdictional defect after the expiration of the 14-day period prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution for instituting a pre-election suit.

(NAN)