The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 20 for ruling on an application by African Democratic Congress, ADC, presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar to amend his eligibility suit against President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress, APC.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date after Atiku’s counsel, Joseph Silas, and lawyers representing President Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, adopted their processes and argued for and against the application.
Atiku and the ADC had approached the court seeking to disqualify President Tinubu and the APC from the 2027 presidential election over allegations concerning the President’s National Youth Service Corps, NYSC, discharge certificate submitted to INEC.
The plaintiffs alleged that the APC submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate and asked the court to compel INEC to remove Tinubu and the APC from the list of candidates and parties for the presidential election.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Joseph Silas asked the court to grant Atiku and the ADC permission to amend their originating summons.
Related Posts:
The plaintiffs say they discovered errors after filing the suit, including the description of an INEC form as Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A.
They also want to specifically set out particulars of the alleged fraud, include a written deposition by Atiku and attach clearer copies of some exhibits.
Atiku and the ADC maintain that the proposed changes do not introduce any new issue or additional prayer and should be allowed in the interest of justice.
However, President Tinubu’s counsel, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, opposed the application, arguing that it is statute-barred and that the plaintiffs are attempting to introduce a new action rather than amend the existing case.
APC counsel Akin Olujinmi, SAN, and INEC counsel Alex Izinyon, SAN, also opposed the application and urged the court to dismiss it.
President Tinubu and the APC have denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
Through APC Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, they argued that the NYSC has never denied issuing the discharge certificate to President Tinubu and asked the court to dismiss the substantive suit as incompetent.
INEC has also challenged the competence of the suit on grounds including that it is statute-barred, the plaintiffs lack legal standing, there is no reasonable cause of action and the case amounts to an abuse of court process.
President Tinubu also opposed the proposed amendment through a counter affidavit deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in the law firm of Wole Olanipekun, SAN.
Adoga argued that the proposed amendment goes beyond correcting errors and seeks to introduce new documents, paragraphs, questions for determination and an additional relief.
He also argued that Atiku’s substantive suit was filed outside the constitutionally prescribed period for pre-election matters.
INEC, through a counter affidavit deposed to by Mendie Akpan, a litigation secretary in the law firm of Alex Izinyon and Company, similarly argued that the proposed amendment would introduce a fresh or different cause of action after the expiration of the 14-day period prescribed for instituting a pre-election suit.
After hearing arguments from all parties, Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the matter until November 20 for ruling on Atiku and the ADC’s application to amend the suit.
