Tinubu, APC, INEC Oppose Atiku’s Bid To Amend Eligibility Suit

The Federal High Court in Abuja has mounted November 20, 2026, to rule on an utility by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) looking for permission to amend their swimsuit difficult President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election.

Justice Inyang Ekwo mounted the date on Tuesday after legal professionals representing Atiku and the ADC, Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) introduced arguments for and towards the proposed modification.

Atiku and the ADC are asking the court docket to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from collaborating within the 2027 presidential election over allegations regarding the president’s National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificates submitted to INEC.

However, Tinubu, the APC and INEC have opposed the modification, arguing that the plaintiffs are trying to introduce new parts into the case and remedy defects in a swimsuit they contend is already incompetent and statute-barred.

At Tuesday’s proceedings, Atiku’s counsel, Joseph Silas, advised the court docket that the applying for modification was dated September 4 and filed on September 10.

Silas stated the plaintiffs filed a reply on factors of legislation after receiving the defendants’ counter-affidavits and urged the court docket to grant the applying.

But Tinubu’s lead counsel, Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), urged Justice Ekwo to dismiss the applying, arguing that the court docket lacked the jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought.

Olanipekun maintained that the applying was statute-barred and that the proposed adjustments amounted to submitting a contemporary motion quite than making corrections to the present swimsuit.

APC’s counsel, Akin Olujinmi, SAN, additionally urged the court docket to reject the applying, whereas INEC’s lawyer, Alex Izinyon, SAN, aligned himself with the arguments superior by the president and the ruling occasion.

Izinyon advised the court docket that INEC had filed a six-paragraph counter-affidavit, a written deal with and an exhibit in opposition to the applying. He additionally drew consideration to an extra authority filed by the fee on October 9.

After listening to the events, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter till November 20 for a ruling on whether or not Atiku and the ADC ought to be allowed to amend their originating summons.

The dispute over the proposed modification centres on whether or not the plaintiffs are merely correcting errors of their authentic court docket paperwork or trying to introduce a considerably completely different case after the constitutionally prescribed deadline for submitting pre-election fits.

In their utility, Atiku and the ADC stated they found errors within the paperwork hooked up to their originating summons, together with the outline of an INEC kind as Form CF001 as a substitute of Form EC9A.

They additionally sought to offer clearer copies of displays, embody a written deposition by Atiku and set out particular particulars of the alleged fraud of their supporting affidavit.

The plaintiffs maintained that the proposed modification wouldn’t introduce a brand new situation or extra prayers and argued that they had been entitled to make the adjustments within the curiosity of justice.

Tinubu, nonetheless, disputed that place in a counter-affidavit filed on September 24.

The president, via Moses Adoga, a litigation assist officer in Olanipekun’s legislation agency, alleged that the proposed modification went past correcting errors within the description of paperwork.

Adoga argued that the plaintiffs sought to amend the questions for dedication and the reliefs requested from the court docket, introduce new paragraphs into their supporting affidavit and substitute the paperwork hooked up to the unique course of.

He additional contended that the proposed adjustments would essentially alter the plaintiffs’ case.

According to the president’s defence, Atiku’s try to introduce particulars of the alleged fraud confirmed that the unique originating summons lacked these particulars and was due to this fact incompetent.

The defence additionally argued that the swimsuit was statute-barred as a result of the plaintiffs filed it on August 14, though the reason for motion they had been difficult allegedly arose on July 11, when Tinubu’s title was submitted to INEC.

Adoga maintained that the constitutional deadline for instituting a pre-election motion couldn’t be prolonged via the court docket’s observe instructions.

He due to this fact urged the court docket to dismiss the applying.

The APC and INEC have additionally opposed the modification, sustaining that the proposed adjustments would introduce a brand new reason for motion or try to remedy jurisdictional defects after the expiration of the constitutionally prescribed interval.

INEC argued that the applying sought to introduce a written deposition that was not filed inside the required interval, reformulate the plaintiffs’ reliefs and resolve the dispute surrounding the identification of the related electoral kind.