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 a request by ex-Vice President Atiku Abubakar to amend a suit seeking to stop Tinubu from participating in the 2027 presidential election. Atiku and his party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), had filed the suit and now seek to amend it. Tinubu, APC, and INEC have objected to the motion, arguing that it attempts to alter the nature of the suit.
Tinubu, in a counter affidavit filed by his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), argued that Atiku's amendment seeks to introduce new reliefs and documents, including FORM EC9, which was not part of the original suit. He claimed that Atiku's substantive suit is statute-barred, having been filed on August 14, while the cause of action arose on July 11 when Tinubu's name was submitted to INEC. Tinubu added that the timeline for institution of actions is prescribed by the 1999 Constitution, not the Practice Direction of the court.
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. The commission noted that granting the motion would introduce a fresh or different cause of action.
Atiku and ADC, in their motion, claimed that they noticed errors in the originating summons, including the nomenclature of the INEC forms attached to their affidavit, which was referred to as Form CF001 instead of Form EC9A. They sought to specifically set out the particulars of the alleged fraud in their affidavit and attach clearer copies of exhibits. They argued 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 ADC, Silas Onu, reported that all parties had been served, and he had received responses from the defendants. However, he noted that he received two responses filed on behalf of President Tinubu. Olanipekun confirmed that the response he filed was for President Tinubu, while Akin Olujinmi (SAN) filed another response on behalf of Tinubu and APC.
The APC's lawyer, Hakeem Afolabi (SAN), applied to correct the title of the response filed for the party, which was erroneously titled as a counter affidavit of the first and second defendants. Onu announced that his client has a pending motion to amend the originating summons, which had been served on all defendants. Olanipekun, Afolabi, and Izinyon acknowledged being served with the motion and had filed counter affidavits.
The court is yet to rule on the motion, with Justice Inyang Ekwo stating that he would prefer to hear the motion for amendment first. The case has significant implications for the 2027 presidential election, with Atiku seeking to stop Tinubu from participating. The court's decision will determine whether Atiku's suit can proceed with the proposed amendments.
Key points
- President Tinubu, APC, and INEC have urged a Federal High Court to reject Atiku's request to amend a suit seeking to stop Tinubu from participating in the 2027 presidential election.
- Atiku's motion to amend the suit seeks to introduce new reliefs and documents, including FORM EC9, which was not part of the original suit.
- The court's decision will determine whether Atiku's suit can proceed with the proposed amendments.
