Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) have asked the Federal High Court in Abuja for permission to amend their suit seeking the disqualification of President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the 2027 presidential election.
The plaintiffs are challenging Tinubu’s eligibility over an allegation that a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate was submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was filed against Tinubu, APC and INEC as the first to third defendants respectively before Justice Inyang Ekwo.
However, Tinubu and APC have urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing that it is incompetent and that Atiku and the ADC lack the legal standing to institute the action.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed on September 9, the first and second defendants denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
Through APC’s Director of Legal Services, Mr Sanusi Samaila, they also maintained that neither Tinubu nor the APC submitted Form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or 2027 election as alleged by the plaintiffs.
They further stated that the NYSC had never denied issuing the discharge certificate to Tinubu at the end of his service year.
Tinubu and APC argued that no constitutional provision had been breached and no injustice had been done to Atiku or the ADC by the submission of the President’s personal particulars to INEC.
In a written address filed alongside their preliminary objection by Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, the defendants argued that the allegation of forgery was a criminal allegation which must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Olujinmi cited Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act and a previous decision of the Supreme Court, arguing that the institution alleged to have issued a disputed certificate must disclaim it before forgery can be established.
According to him, without evidence from the institution or body purported to have issued a certificate or document stating that it did not issue it, “it would be idle and useless to contend that it is forged.”
The senior lawyer also cited the Supreme Court’s position that “in order to prove forgery, or that a document is forged, two documents must be produced viz: the document from which the forgery was (a) made; and (b) the forgery or the forged document.”
Olujinmi argued that Atiku and the ADC had not produced any evidence from the NYSC Directorate disclaiming the issuance of Tinubu’s discharge certificate.
He consequently described the case as hypothetical and academic, arguing that it was “incompetent, being a pre-election matter,” and that the plaintiffs lacked the “locus standi” to challenge Tinubu’s candidacy on the platform of the APC.
The defendants therefore urged Justice Ekwo to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.
Meanwhile, Atiku and the ADC have filed a motion on notice seeking leave to amend their originating summons.
The application, brought pursuant to Paragraph 7(8) of the Federal High Court (Pre-election) Practice Directions, 2006, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court, contains two principal reliefs.
The plaintiffs are asking the court for an order granting them leave to amend the originating summons and another order deeming the amended originating summons filed with the application as properly filed.
Explaining why the amendment should be allowed, Atiku and the ADC said they initially filed the suit on August 14 but subsequently discovered some errors in the originating summons and its accompanying affidavit.
One of the errors, they said, concerned the nomenclature of the INEC form attached to their affidavit, which was referred to as Form CF001 instead of the current Form EC9A.
They also said there was a need to specifically set out the particulars of the alleged fraud in their affidavit, including a written deposition by Atiku and clearer copies of exhibits referenced in the case but which were unavailable to them when the suit was initially filed.
The plaintiffs said the additional documents and corrections would replace “the one presently attached, but is inelegant.”
They further argued that, as plaintiffs, they “are entitled to make this amended in the interest of justice.”
The case has been fixed for hearing on September 28, according to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN).
