Legal Showdown: Court to Rule on Atiku's High-Stakes Bid to Amend Tinubu Certificate Forgery Suit

The Federal High Court in Abuja, under the stewardship of Justice Inyang Ekwo, has scheduled November 20 for a pivotal ruling concerning an application to amend a suit challenging the eligibility of President Bola Tinubu and his All Progressives Congress (APC) for the 2027 presidential election. This significant development follows a detailed hearing on Tuesday, where legal teams presented arguments both for and against the proposed amendments.

The substantive suit, identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was initially lodged in August by Atiku Abubakar, who is the 2027 presidential candidate for the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The core contention of this legal action is a request to the court to disqualify Mr. Tinubu and the APC from the upcoming presidential election, which is slated for January 16, 2027, concurrently with national assembly polls. Central to the plaintiffs' argument is the allegation that an allegedly forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate was submitted by the APC to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to support President Tinubu's nomination for the 2027 presidency. It is claimed that this certificate bears the name 'Bola Adekunle'. Atiku and the ADC have urged the court to mandate INEC to remove President Tinubu and the APC from the official list of candidates and parties designated for the 2027 election.

In a subsequent move, Atiku and the ADC submitted an application on September 10, seeking leave to amend their originating summons. The rationale behind this amendment was to rectify perceived errors, introduce a clearer exhibit, and articulate with greater precision the particulars of their fraud allegations against President Tinubu. A specific error cited involved the incorrect reference to INEC’s Form EC9A—the current affidavit of personal particulars used by candidates—as Form CF001 in their initial court filings. Furthermore, the plaintiffs expressed their intention to incorporate a written deposition from Atiku and to attach more legible copies of exhibits that were unavailable at the time of the original filing. They asserted that these amendments were vital for the proper presentation of their case and would not introduce new issues or additional prayers. This application was grounded in Paragraph 7(8) of the Federal High Court (Pre-election) Practice Directions 2006, alongside the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

However, the proposed amendment faced strong opposition from President Tinubu, the APC, and INEC. Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), representing President Tinubu, contended that allowing the amendment would fundamentally transform the original case into an entirely new one, which he argued was legally impermissible. He further asserted that the application itself was statute-barred, implying it was filed beyond the legally prescribed timeframe. Mr. Olanipekun described the plaintiffs' attempt as an effort to initiate a new action under the guise of an amendment, likening it to "shifting the goal post in the middle of the game" after legal issues had already been joined by the parties.

Akin Olujinmi, SAN, counsel for the APC, and Alex Izinyon, SAN, representing INEC, echoed Mr. Olanipekun's stance, urging the court to dismiss the amendment application. Both lawyers adopted their respective counter-affidavits, highlighting that the proposed changes sought to introduce new reliefs, documents, and facts, or even an entirely new cause of action, into the proceedings. They also argued that the amendment aimed to remedy jurisdictional defects after the constitutional deadline for filing pre-election suits had elapsed. INEC specifically pointed out that the amendments intended to include a written deposition not filed within the constitutionally stipulated period and to reformulate existing prayers. A counter-affidavit sworn by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer in Mr. Olanipekun’s firm, further alleged that the proposed amendments would fundamentally alter the entire case, introduce new prayers, and substitute documents, thereby rendering the original, allegedly incompetent, process unamendable.

Regarding the main suit, President Tinubu and the APC had previously filed a joint counter-affidavit denying any submission of a forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 elections. They explicitly clarified that they did not submit any Form CF001 to the electoral body. They maintained that the NYSC has never disclaimed issuing the discharge certificate to President Tinubu, emphasizing that legal precedent dictates that proof of forgery necessitates a disclaimer from the purported issuing institution, citing a Supreme Court decision to support this position. Both the defendants, alongside INEC, challenged the competence of the substantive suit itself, asserting it was statute-barred. Their argument hinged on the fact that the cause of action—the submission of Tinubu's name—arose on July 11, while the suit was filed on August 14, thereby exceeding the 14-day period mandated by Section 285(9) of the constitution for pre-election matters. Additionally, they argued that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to institute the action, that there was an absence of a reasonable cause of action, and that the suit constituted an abuse of court process. INEC specifically highlighted the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the mandatory written deposition requirement outlined in Paragraph 7(1) of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.

After considering all arguments pertaining to the application for amendment, Justice Ekwo has adjourned the matter for a ruling on November 20. It is important to note that irrespective of the outcome of this specific application or the substantive suit, any aggrieved party reserves the right to pursue appeals up to the level of the Supreme Court.