Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking leave to modify the lawsuit he filed against President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) regarding Tinubu’s qualification for the 2027 presidential election.
Atiku informed the court on Monday that he intended to make significant changes to the case.
Presiding judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo, subsequently fixed October 13 for the hearing of the application and directed all parties to regularise their filings.
At the proceedings, counsel to Atiku and the ADC, Joseph Silas, stated that responses had been received from some defendants, but President Tinubu’s reply to the application had yet to be served on them.
Responding, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, representing the President, said the counter affidavit had already been delivered to the plaintiffs on September 24 and duly acknowledged by their legal team.
After examining the proof of service in the court records, Justice Ekwo confirmed that the document had been properly served.
The matter was then adjourned to October 13 for the hearing of the request to revise the originating summons.
In the substantive suit, Atiku and the ADC are asking the court to bar Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
The plaintiffs questioned the authenticity of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate linked to Tinubu and submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
In the case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, they alleged that the APC presented a fake NYSC certificate to INEC on behalf of the President.
They therefore requested an order directing INEC to remove Tinubu and the APC from the list of candidates and political parties for the election.
Tinubu and the APC, however, dismissed the allegations and asked the court to strike out the suit.
In their joint response filed on September 9, they argued that the action was defective and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal capacity to institute the case.
They also denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC in relation to the 2023 or 2027 elections.
The defendants maintained that the NYSC had never repudiated the discharge certificate issued to Tinubu after his service year. They further argued that proof of forgery requires a disclaimer from the institution that issued the document, citing a previous Supreme Court ruling.
INEC also challenged the suit through a preliminary objection filed by its counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, raising issues of statute limitation, lack of locus standi, absence of a valid cause of action and abuse of court process.
The commission further argued that Atiku and the ADC failed to comply with provisions of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026 regarding written depositions.
Meanwhile, Atiku and the ADC filed an application on September 10, seeking permission to revise their originating summons.
They explained that certain mistakes were discovered after the suit was filed, including an incorrect reference to an INEC document described as Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A.
The applicants also sought to include clearer exhibits, provide more details on the alleged fraud and attach Atiku’s written statement.
They insisted that the proposed changes would not introduce fresh claims or additional reliefs and urged the court to grant the request in the interest of justice.
President Tinubu opposed the application in a counter affidavit filed on September 24.
Through Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in Olanipekun’s chambers, the President argued that the proposed amendments extended beyond correcting errors.
Adoga contended that Atiku and the ADC intended to add new reliefs, alter the issues for determination and introduce additional documents and affidavit paragraphs.
He maintained that the changes would substantially transform the original suit and urged the court to reject the application.
