‘You Can’t Rewrite the Case Now’ — INEC Opposes Atiku’s Tinubu Suit Amendment

By Taibat Ummi Yakubu

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has opposed a fresh attempt by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to amend their suit seeking the disqualification of President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) from the 2027 presidential election.

The electoral commission urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to reject the proposed amendment, arguing that allowing it at this stage would effectively introduce a new case after the constitutional deadline for filing a pre-election matter had expired.

Atiku, the ADC presidential candidate, and his party had instituted the suit against President Tinubu and the APC over the alleged submission of a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to INEC.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to disqualify Tinubu and the APC from participating in the 2027 presidential election and direct INEC to remove their names from the list of candidates and political parties eligible to contest the poll.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, also joined INEC as the third defendant.

However, the commission has mounted a broad legal challenge against the case, asking the court to dismiss it on several grounds, including statute-barred filing, lack of legal standing, absence of a reasonable cause of action and abuse of court process.

In a preliminary objection filed on September 7 through its counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, INEC also accused the plaintiffs of failing to comply with a mandatory requirement of the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions (Amendment) 2026.

The commission specifically argued that the plaintiffs failed to provide the required written deposition alongside their originating summons, a requirement it said was particularly important given that the case was founded on an allegation of certificate forgery.

President Tinubu and the APC have equally asked the court to throw out the suit.

In their joint counter affidavit filed on September 9, they described the case as incompetent and maintained that Atiku and the ADC lacked the legal basis to institute it.

They also denied submitting any forged certificate to INEC in connection with either the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.

Through the APC Director of Legal Services, Mr Sanusi Samaila, the defendants further argued that they did not submit Form CF001 to INEC for either election as alleged by the plaintiffs.

They maintained that the NYSC had never disowned the discharge certificate issued to Tinubu after his service and argued that a claim of forgery could not stand without a disclaimer from the institution alleged to have issued the document.

To reinforce their position, the defendants relied on an earlier Supreme Court decision, urging the Federal High Court to uphold their objections and dismiss the case.

But Atiku and the ADC have now returned to court seeking permission to amend their originating summons.

In their motion on notice, the plaintiffs asked Justice Inyang Ekwo to grant them leave to correct what they described as errors and omissions in the documents filed when the suit was initially commenced.

Advertisement

They also asked the court to deem the proposed amended originating summons as properly filed once the application was granted.

According to Atiku and the ADC, the need for the amendment became apparent after they reviewed the originating summons filed on August 14.

One of the issues they sought to correct concerns the identification of an INEC form. They said the document had been referred to as Form CF001 instead of the current Form EC9A.

The plaintiffs also want to expressly set out the particulars of the alleged fraud in their affidavit, include Atiku’s written deposition and replace some exhibits with clearer copies that were not available when the original suit was filed.

They argued that the proposed changes were necessary to present their case properly and that, as plaintiffs, they were entitled to seek an amendment in the interest of justice.

INEC, however, has rejected that argument and urged the court to dismiss the application.

In a counter affidavit filed on September 10, the commission stressed that its preliminary objection challenging the competence and jurisdiction of the suit remains pending.

Mendie Akpan, a litigation secretary at the law firm of Alex Izinyon & Co, who deposed to the affidavit on behalf of INEC, argued that the proposed amendment goes far beyond correcting simple typographical or clerical mistakes.

She maintained that the changes sought by Atiku and the ADC would effectively introduce a fresh cause of action, reformulate the reliefs being sought and attempt to correct what INEC described as fundamental defects in the original case.

According to the commission, the proposed amendment would also introduce a written deposition that was not filed within the constitutionally prescribed period.

INEC further argued that the attempt to correct the confusion surrounding the CF001 and EC9A forms could not be treated as a minor amendment, particularly because the case is a pre-election matter governed by strict constitutional timelines.

The commission relied on Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which prescribes a 14-day period for instituting a pre-election suit after the cause of action arises.

Akpan argued that allowing the amendment after the expiration of that period would amount to permitting the plaintiffs to circumvent a constitutional deadline.

She further contended that INEC had already joined issues with Atiku and the ADC on the case as originally filed and would suffer substantial prejudice if the plaintiffs were allowed to replace it with what the commission considers a materially different case.

The electoral body also warned that granting the application before its preliminary objection is determined could lead to a miscarriage of justice and further complicate the jurisdictional question already before the court.

INEC therefore urged Justice Ekwo to dismiss the motion, insisting that the suit is a special type of litigation, or sui generis, in which procedural and constitutional deadlines cannot be treated casually.

The legal battle now places the Federal High Court before an early and potentially decisive question in Atiku’s challenge: whether the former vice-president and the ADC can still alter the foundation of their case after the statutory window for bringing a pre-election action has closed.

The outcome of the court’s decision on the amendment could determine how the substantive allegations against Tinubu and the APC proceed, or whether the challenge will be halted on procedural grounds before the court reaches the heart of the certificate controversy.