Reported by Ariajegbe Sylvia Esezobor
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 seeking to amend their suit challenging President Bola Tinubu's eligibility for the 2027 presidential election over an alleged forged National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date on Tuesday after hearing arguments for and against the application by Atiku and the ADC, whose presidential candidate is the former vice president . The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, names President Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission as first to third defendants respectively .
The plaintiffs filed the application on September 10, seeking leave to amend their originating summons and have the proposed amended processes deemed properly filed and served . They said they discovered errors in the original suit, including the reference to an INEC form as Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A. They also argued that the amendments were necessary to provide particulars of the alleged fraud, incorporate a written deposition by Atiku and attach clearer copies of exhibits that were unavailable when the suit was filed .
Tinubu's counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, opposed the application, arguing that the parties had already joined issues and that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to shift the goalpost midway through the proceedings . He said the proposed changes went beyond correcting errors and would introduce new reliefs, documents and facts into the case . The President's legal team also contended that the substantive suit was statute-barred, arguing that the cause of action arose on July 11 when Tinubu's name was submitted to INEC, while the suit was filed on August 14 .
A former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Akin Olujimi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who represented the APC, also urged the court to reject the application on similar grounds . Another senior advocate, Dr Alex Izinyon, representing INEC, aligned with the arguments advanced by Tinubu and the APC, arguing that the proposed amendments would introduce a new cause of action and amount to an attempt to cure defects in the original suit after the constitutional deadline for filing pre-election cases had elapsed .
At the proceedings, Atiku's counsel, Joseph Onu, urged the court to grant the application, arguing that the proposed amendments were necessary to correct errors in the originating summons and introduce additional evidence in support of the allegations against Tinubu and the APC . The lawyer adopted their processes and prayed the court to grant their reliefs .
The substantive suit seeks an order disqualifying Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election over the President's NYSC discharge certificate submitted to INEC . The plaintiffs alleged that the certificate submitted to the electoral commission was forged and asked the court to direct INEC to remove Tinubu and the APC from the list of candidates and political parties for the election . Their central argument is that the NYSC discharge certificate presented by the President bears the name Bola Adekunle, rather than Bola Tinubu, the name by which he is widely known .
Tinubu and the APC have denied the allegations and urged the court to dismiss the suit . In their joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, they argued that the suit was 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 and stated that the NYSC has never denied issuing the discharge certificate to Tinubu 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 . The APC also asked the court to dismiss the suit challenging Tinubu's qualification, maintaining that the claims were legally defective and could not support the reliefs being sought .
INEC, in its preliminary objection filed on September 7 by 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 . The commission 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 also told the court that as the electoral umpire, it does not nominate candidates for political parties nor originate, manufacture, or procure personal certificates or credentials submitted by candidates or political parties sponsoring them .
The court's decision on the amendment application will determine whether Atiku and the ADC can proceed with their case using the proposed changes to their originating summons . It will not, by itself, settle the underlying allegations against Tinubu . Justice Ekwo is expected to determine on November 20 whether Atiku and the ADC can amend their originating summons before the court proceeds with the substantive dispute over Tinubu's eligibility for the 2027 presidential election .
The political context of the case is significant. The 2027 general elections are less than four months away, with the presidential and National Assembly elections scheduled for January 16, and the governorship and state assembly elections for February 6. President Tinubu is seeking a second term on the APC platform, while Atiku is contesting on the ADC ticket with former Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi as his running mate. The suit is part of the legal challenges surrounding Tinubu's eligibility ahead of the elections, and the court's ruling on the amendment application will shape the trajectory of the case as the campaign intensifies .
For Atiku and the ADC, the amendment application represents an opportunity to strengthen their case before the substantive hearing. For Tinubu and the APC, it is an attempt to prevent the plaintiffs from expanding the scope of their claims after the statutory deadline for pre-election matters has passed. For Nigerians, the case is a reminder that the legal battles over the President's credentials, which featured prominently in the 2023 election petitions, remain unresolved and will continue to shadow the 2027 contest. The November 20 ruling will determine whether the case proceeds on the basis of the original summons or the proposed amendments, but it will not resolve the central question of whether the NYSC certificate submitted to INEC was forged .
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments