KEY POINTS
- Atiku Abubakar and the ADC want to amend their suit seeking Tinubu’s disqualification from the 2027 presidential election.
- The suit alleges that a forged NYSC discharge certificate was submitted to INEC.
- Tinubu and APC have denied submitting any forged certificate and asked the court to dismiss the case.
- The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed Sept. 28 for hearing.
MAIN STORY
Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, and the party have asked the Federal High Court in Abuja for permission to amend their suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
The plaintiffs are seeking to amend their originating summons after identifying errors and omissions in the documents filed when the case was instituted.
Atiku and the ADC had approached Justice Inyang Ekwo in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, asking the court to disqualify Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress from the 2027 presidential election over an alleged forged National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The president, APC and INEC are the first, second and third defendants respectively.
In their response, Tinubu and the APC urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing that it was incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the action.
In a joint counter affidavit filed on Sept. 9, the president and APC denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC in connection with either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
Through APC Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, they also denied submitting Form CF001 to INEC for either election as alleged by the plaintiffs.
They maintained that NYSC had never denied issuing a discharge certificate to Tinubu after his service.
The defendants further argued that no constitutional provision had been breached and that no injustice had been done to the plaintiffs through the submission of the president’s personal particulars to INEC.
In a written address filed with their response, counsel to Tinubu and APC, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, challenged the substance and competence of the suit.
Olujinmi argued that the allegation of forgery amounted to a criminal allegation and therefore had to be established beyond reasonable doubt under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
He relied on a previous Supreme Court decision in arguing that a claim that a certificate is forged requires a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued it.
According to him, without a statement from the relevant institution confirming that it did not issue the document or that part of it was not made by the institution, an allegation of forgery could not stand.
He also argued that proof of forgery required both the original document from which the alleged forgery was made and the disputed document itself.
Olujinmi said Atiku and the ADC had not presented any evidence from the NYSC Directorate disclaiming the issuance of Tinubu’s discharge certificate.
He consequently described the case as hypothetical and academic, while also arguing that it was an incompetent pre election matter and that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to challenge Tinubu’s candidacy.
Meanwhile, Atiku and the ADC filed a motion on notice seeking the court’s permission to amend the originating summons.
The application was brought pursuant to Paragraph 7(8) of the Federal High Court Pre election Practice Directions, 2006, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
The plaintiffs are asking for leave to amend the originating summons and for the amended document, once filed, to be deemed properly filed.
They said the suit was initially filed on Aug. 14 but that they subsequently discovered errors requiring correction.
One of the issues identified was the description of the relevant INEC form attached to their affidavit. They said the form had been referred to as Form CF001 instead of the current Form EC9A.
The plaintiffs also said they needed to set out more specifically the particulars of the alleged fraud already contained in their affidavit, provide a written deposition by Atiku and attach clearer copies of exhibits referenced in the case but unavailable to them when the suit was first filed.
They argued that the proposed amendments were necessary in the interest of justice.
The court has fixed Sept. 28 for hearing in the case.
THE ISSUES
- The case raises questions about the evidentiary requirements for establishing an allegation of forgery in an electoral dispute, particularly where the institution said to have issued a document has not formally disclaimed it.
- The dispute also places the legal standing of the plaintiffs to challenge a presidential candidate before the court, with the defendants arguing that they lack the right to institute the action.
- The request to amend the originating summons shows that the accuracy of electoral documents and the way claims are presented can become significant in pre election litigation.
- The court will have to consider both the defendants’ objections to the competence of the case and the plaintiffs’ request to correct and expand their originating summons.
WHAT’S BEING SAID
“in order to prove forgery, or that a document is forged, two documents must be produced viz: the document from which the forgery was (a) made; and (b) the forgery or the forged document.” – Akin Olujinmi, SAN
“incompetent, being a pre election matter” – Akin Olujinmi, SAN
“are entitled to make this amended in the interest of justice.” – Atiku Abubakar and ADC
WHAT’S NEXT
The Federal High Court in Abuja will hear the case on Sept. 28.
The court is expected to consider the plaintiffs’ application to amend their originating su
