Bimbo Aderenle
The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled October 13 for the hearing of an application by Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), seeking to amend his suit against President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date on Monday after counsel representing the parties informed the court that some processes relating to the application still needed to be regularised.
Joseph Silas, counsel to Atiku and the ADC, told the court that responses had been received from the other defendants but said Tinubu’s counter-affidavit had not been served on him.
However, Wole Olanipekun, counsel to the president, said the counter-affidavit was served on the plaintiffs on September 24. Justice Ekwo subsequently confirmed that the president’s legal team had filed proof of service.
The judge thereafter adjourned the matter to October 13 for the hearing of the amendment application.
Atiku and the ADC instituted the substantive suit seeking to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential election over the NYSC discharge certificate submitted by the president to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The plaintiffs allege that the APC submitted a forged NYSC certificate to INEC. They are asking the court to direct the electoral commission to exclude Tinubu and the APC from its list of candidates and parties for the election.
Tinubu and the APC have rejected the allegation and urged the court to dismiss the case.
On September 10, Atiku and the ADC filed an application asking the court for permission to amend their originating summons and to deem the proposed amended process as properly filed.
The applicants said they identified errors in the original suit, including the description of an INEC document as Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A.
They also argued that the proposed changes were necessary to provide further particulars of the alleged fraud, include a written deposition by Atiku and attach clearer copies of exhibits that were not available when the case was initially filed.
Tinubu opposed the application, arguing that the proposed amendments went beyond correcting errors and would introduce fresh reliefs, documents and facts into the proceedings.
His legal team further argued that the substantive suit was statute-barred, maintaining that the cause of action arose when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC on July 11, whereas the suit was filed on August 14.
INEC also opposed the amendment application, arguing that it would introduce a new cause of action and effectively cure defects in the original case after the constitutional deadline for filing pre-election matters had elapsed.
The commission’s preliminary objection challenging the competence of the substantive suit remains pending before the court.
