The legal battle over the alleged forgery of President Bola Tinubu’s National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate has taken another turn, with the Federal High Court in Abuja fixing November 20 to rule on Atiku Abubakar’s application to amend his suit challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Atiku, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate for the 2027 election, instituted the suit in August against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The former vice president and his party are seeking the disqualification of Tinubu and the APC from the election, alleging that the president’s NYSC discharge certificate submitted to INEC in support of his nomination was forged.
However, before the substantive suit can proceed, the court must first determine whether to allow the plaintiffs to amend their originating summons to correct errors, provide clearer copies of exhibits and present their allegations in greater detail.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date for ruling after hearing arguments from lawyers representing Atiku and the ADC, Tinubu, the APC and INEC.
Moving the application, counsel to Atiku and the ADC, Joseph Silas, urged the court to grant the request, maintaining that the proposed amendments were necessary to properly present their case.
The plaintiffs said they discovered errors in their court processes after filing the suit on August 14. Among the corrections sought was the proper identification of INEC’s Form EC9A, which contains a candidate’s personal particulars, instead of Form CF001.
They also sought to include a written deposition by Atiku and clearer copies of certain exhibits, arguing that the changes would not introduce a new issue or additional reliefs but would help the court determine the matter on its merits.
The defendants, however, strongly opposed the application.
Tinubu’s counsel, Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, urged the court to dismiss the request, arguing that the proposed amendments went beyond correcting errors and would fundamentally alter the plaintiffs’ case.
Olanipekun also contended that the suit was statute-barred, maintaining that the plaintiffs could not use an amendment to circumvent the constitutionally prescribed period for instituting pre-election cases.
Counsel to the APC, Akin Olujinmi, and INEC’s lawyer, Alex Izinyon, both Senior Advocates of Nigeria, aligned with the opposition, asking the court to reject the application after adopting their respective counter-affidavits and written addresses.
In his counter-affidavit, Tinubu’s legal team argued that the proposed amendment sought to introduce new documents, additional paragraphs and changes to the questions for determination and reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.
The president’s lawyers further maintained that the suit was filed outside the constitutionally stipulated timeframe, arguing that the cause of action arose on July 11, when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC, rather than August 1, when the commission published the candidates’ particulars.
They also contended that the plaintiffs’ attempt to provide further details of the alleged fraud amounted to an admission that the original court processes were deficient and, therefore, could not be amended.
Atiku and the ADC, however, maintained that the proposed changes were intended to correct errors and clarify their case in the interest of justice.
With all parties having presented their arguments, Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until November 20 for a ruling on whether the amendment will be permitted.
The decision will determine the scope of the plaintiffs’ case as the court considers the next steps in the legal challenge to Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election.
