Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja for permission to amend his suit challenging the eligibility of President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) ahead of the 2027 presidential election.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), filed the application alongside the party, asking the court to allow changes to their existing case against Tinubu, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The plaintiffs are challenging Tinubu and the APC over allegations involving the submission of a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to INEC.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was filed before Justice Inyang Ekwo, with Tinubu, APC and INEC listed as the first, second and third defendants respectively.
Tinubu, APC Reject Allegations
Tinubu and the APC have urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the suit 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 in connection with either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
Through the APC’s Director of Legal Services, Mr Sanusi Samaila, they also argued that they did not submit Form CF001 to INEC for either election, contrary to the claims made by the plaintiffs.
The defendants further maintained that the NYSC has never denied issuing a discharge certificate to Tinubu following the completion of his service year.
They argued that no constitutional provision had been violated and that their submission of the president’s personal details to INEC did not cause any injustice to the plaintiffs.
APC Lawyer Challenges Forgery Claim
In a written address filed with the court by Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, the defendants raised several objections to the case.
Olujinmi argued that the allegation of forgery amounts to a criminal accusation and must therefore be established beyond reasonable doubt under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
He further argued that established legal principles require a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued a disputed certificate before forgery can be established.
According to Olujinmi, without evidence from the institution or organisation that purportedly issued the certificate stating that it did not issue the document, an allegation of forgery cannot stand.
The lawyer also cited a previous Supreme Court decision which held 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 provided 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 not based on sufficient factual evidence.
The lawyer also described the suit as “incompetent, being a pre-election matter, ” and maintained that the plaintiffs lacked the “locus standi” to challenge Tinubu’s candidacy on the APC platform.
He urged the court to uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.
Atiku Seeks to Amend Court Papers
Meanwhile, Atiku and the ADC have filed a motion on notice seeking permission to amend their originating summons.
The application was brought pursuant to Paragraph 7(8) of the Federal High Court (Pre-election) Practice Directions, 2006, as well as the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
In the application, the plaintiffs are asking the court to grant them leave to amend their originating summons.
They are also seeking an order deeming the amended originating summons already filed with the application as properly filed.
The plaintiffs listed four grounds in support of their request.
They explained that they initially filed the suit on August 14 seeking the reliefs contained in the originating summons but later discovered several errors and omissions.
One of the issues they identified concerned the naming of the INEC forms attached to their affidavit. They said the form was referred to as Form CF001 instead of the current Form EC9A.
Atiku and the ADC also said they needed to provide more specific details of the alleged fraud in their affidavit, including a written deposition by Atiku and clearer copies of exhibits referenced in the case.
According to the plaintiffs, some of the clearer documents were not available when the original suit was filed and would replace “the one presently attached, but is inelegant.”
They further argued that, as plaintiffs in the case, they “are entitled to make this amended in the interest of justice.”
The court is expected to consider the application as the legal dispute over Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election continues.
