President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have urged a Federal High Court in Abuja to reject a request by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar to amend a suit seeking to stop President Tinubu from contesting the 2027 presidential election. The suit was filed by Atiku and his party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC). President Tinubu, the APC, and INEC objected to the motion for an amendment, citing that it would alter the nature of the suit.
Atiku's motion seeks to amend the originating summons, citing typographical errors, particularly in the nomenclature of INEC forms attached to their affidavit. The plaintiffs claim that the errors were in Form CF001, which they referred to as Form EC9A. They also seek to specifically set out the particulars of alleged fraud in their affidavit. However, President Tinubu's counsel, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), argued that the proposed amendments are attempts to alter the entire case presented before the court.
President Tinubu's counter-affidavit states that Atiku's amendments are not limited to correcting errors but also seek to introduce new reliefs and documents. The President argued that Atiku's substantive suit is statute-barred, having been filed on August 14, while the cause of action arose on July 11 when President Tinubu's name was submitted to INEC. According to him, the timeline for institution of actions is prescribed by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and not the Practice Direction of the court.
The APC, in its counter-affidavit, raised similar issues, while INEC argued that Atiku's motion to amend and the proposed amended originating summons were 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. The commission argued that the proposed amendment, if granted, would have the effect of introducing a fresh or different cause of action.
Atiku and the ADC claim that the motion, brought pursuant to Paragraph 7(8) of the FHC (Pre-election) Practice Directions, 2006, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, was praying for two reliefs. The first is for an order granting them leave 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.
During the hearing, lawyer to Atiku and the ADC, Silas Onu, argued that all parties had been served after the order for substituted service granted by the court. Onu said he had also received responses from the defendants, including two filed on behalf of President Tinubu. The lawyer said he received one filed by Olanipekun, while the second was filed by Akin Olujinmi (SAN) on behalf of President Tinubu and the APC.
The court will determine whether to grant Atiku's request to amend the suit. Key parties have submitted their objections and responses to the motion. The court's decision will have implications for President Tinubu's eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Key points
- President Tinubu, APC, and INEC oppose Atiku's request to amend the suit.
- Atiku's motion seeks to correct errors in the originating summons.
- The court's decision will impact President Tinubu's eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
