President Bola Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have urged a Federal High Court in Abuja to reject the request by ex-Vice President Atiku Abubakar to be allowed to amend a suit he filed seeking to stop President Tinubu from participating in next year’s presidential election.

President Tinubu, who is the candidate of the APC for the 2027 presidential election, and his party and INEC objected to the motion for amendment filed by Atiku and his party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), on the grounds that the ex-Vice President seeks to surreptitiously alter the nature of the suit, to which they had already filed responses.

President Tinubu, in a counter affidavit filed by his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), argued that contrary to the plaintiffs’ claim that the amendment was to rectify typographical errors, they also plan to extend the alteration to the questions for determination and reliefs sought in the originating summons.

He added that Atiku sought to introduce an entirely new relief, which was not sought in the earlier originating summons, with which the action was initiated.

“I also observed that the plaintiffs seek to introduce new documents through the affidavit, by substituting FORM CF001 for FORM EC9, while seeking to introduce entirely new paragraphs in the supporting affidavit to the originating summons.”

According to him, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs essentially attempts to alter the entire case of the plaintiffs as presented before this honourable court.

“The entire facts deposed to in the affidavit in support of the motion on notice, including Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are untrue, misconceived or skewed to mislead this honourable court.”

The President noted that the plaintiffs made it clear that their purported cause of action is predicated on the documents submitted by the President to INEC.

He, however, argued that Atiku’s substantive suit is statute-barred, having been filed on Aug. 14 while the cause of action which he is challenging arose on July 11 when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC, even though the commission published the particulars of all presidential candidates with their submitted certificates on Aug. 1.

According to him, the timeline for institution of actions is prescribed by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and not the Practice Direction of this Honourable Court.

“The Practice Direction does not entitle any party to file or seek to amend their originating summons upon the expiration of the time prescribed by the Constitution for the institution of the action,” he added.

Besides, he argued that contrary to Atiku’s reliefs, the amendment sought more than just “to correct errors of description of documents.

“The attempt to ‘set out the particulars of fraud in the affidavit’ is an admission to the fact that the previously filed originating summons contained no such particulars, thus, rendering same incompetent.”

He submitted that an incompetent originating process cannot be amended, adding that the proposed amended originating summons clearly indicated that an additional prayer is being sought therein.

The APC also raised similar issues in its counter affidavit, while INEC, represented by Alex Izinyon (SAN), argued that Atiku’s motion to amend and the proposed amended originating summons are meant to substitute or bring in a new cause of action.

INEC added that the motion sought to attach a written deposition not filed within the constitutionally prescribed period, reformulate reliefs and cure the CF001/EC9 confusion.

It argued that the proposed amendment, if granted, would have the effect of introducing a fresh or different cause of action.

INEC noted that in the alternative, the motion, if granted, has the effect of curing a jurisdictional defect, after the expiration of the 14-day period prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution for instituting a pre-election suit.

Atiku and ADC said the motion, brought pursuant to Paragraph 7(8) of the FHC (Pre-election) Practice Directions, 2006 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, is praying for two reliefs.

The first is for an order granting leave to them to amend their originating summons, while the second is for an order deeming the amended originating summons filed upon their application, as properly filed amended originating summons.

Parts of the grounds for the motion, they said was that after filing the originating summons, they noticed a few errors, especially on the nomenclature of the INEC forms attached to their affidavit which was referred to as Form CF001, instead of the now Form EC9A.

They said there was also the need to specifically set out the particulars of the alleged fraud in their affidavit, including a written deposition of the 1st plaintiff (Atiku) and attaching clearer copies of Exhibits referred to, but were not available with the plaintiffs as at the time of filing the suit.

Atiku and the ADC said these would replace “the one presently attached, but is inelegant,” and that no new issue had been added to the amended originating summons and no additional prayers sought.

At Monday’s hearing, lawyer to Atiku and the ADC, Silas Onu said although the case was slated for further mention, he was pleased to report that all the parties have been served after the order for substituted service granted by the court.

Onu said he has also received responses from the defendants, but noted that he received two filed on behalf of President Tinubu. Onu said he received one filed by Olanipekun, while the second was filed by Akin Olujinmi (SAN) on behalf of Tinubu and the APC.

When the judge asked what the true position was, Olanipekun said the response he filed was for President Tinubu.

Hakeem Afolabi (SAN), who represented the APC, said the response filed for the political party (the second defendant) was erroneously titled counter affidavit of the first (President Tinubu) and second defendants.

He applied to have it corrected to reflect that it was filed for only the second defendant.

Onu later announced that his client has a pending motion to amend the originating summons, which he said has been served on all the defendants.

Olanipekun, Afolabi and Izinyon acknowledged being served with the motion, and said they responded by each filing a counter affidavit.

Although Olanipekun and Izinyon suggested that the court hear both the substantive suit and the motion for amendment on the next date, Justice Inyang Ekwo said he would prefer to first hear and determine the motion for amendment before hearing the main suit.

Justice Ekwo then adjourned till October 13 for the hearing of the motion for amendment

Atiku and the ADC are, in the substantive suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, seeking, among others, an order disqualifying President Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election.

They questioned Tinubu’s National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate, which the APC submitted to INEC.

Atiku, in a supporting affidavit, alleged that President Tinubu submitted to INEC an NYSC discharge certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle,” which, according to him, is different from the President’s name – Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

He alleged that he submitted the same NYSC certificate in connection with the 2027 presidential election, claiming the document is not a certificate obtained by Tinubu. (The Nation)