Abuja, Nigeria — September 29, 2026.
President Bola Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have opposed a request by former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to amend their suit challenging Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election, asking the Federal High Court to dismiss the application.
Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) officially filed the motion on notice to amend their originating summons on September 10, 2026.
Follow DDNewsOnline on Facebook For More Breaking News
The lawsuit was filed jointly by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
They filed the legal action against President Bola Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The lawsuit, registered under suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, primarily challenges President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election based on allegations regarding his academic credentials and administrative submissions.
Specifically, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) are challenging his eligibility on the following grounds:
The plaintiffs claim that Tinubu submitted a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Follow And Like Us On Tiktok
The suit highlights a discrepancy in the certificate, noting that the document submitted bears the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle,” which they argue raises questions about its authenticity and ownership.
Based on these allegations, the suit contends that Tinubu does not meet the legal and constitutional requirements to contest the 2027 presidential election.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is asking the court to reject the amendment because his legal team argues it crosses the line from correcting minor clerical errors to introducing entirely new substance into the lawsuit.
For Breaking News And More Follow Us On Instagram
Through his lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Tinubu has presented three primary arguments to the Federal High Court against allowing the amendment:
- Tinubu’s defense team contends that the proposed changes are not minor rectifications. They argue that by adding a direct written deposition from Atiku Abubakar and introducing fresh documents and specific fraud particulars, the plaintiffs are trying to inject entirely new reliefs, facts, and evidence that were absent in the original filing.
The defense maintains that the entire substantive case is dead on arrival because it violates constitutional timelines for pre-election matters. They point out that the cause of action began when Tinubu’s name was officially submitted to INEC on July 11, but the lawsuit was not filed until August 14—meaning the legally mandated window had already expired. They argue you cannot amend a suit that is already legally incompetent.
Along with arguments backed by INEC’s legal team, Tinubu’s side asserts that the plaintiffs failed to follow strict procedures, such as attaching Atiku’s mandatory written deposition when the case was initiated. They argue that allowing an amendment now is a backdoor attempt to cure fatal legal defects after the strict deadline for filing pre-election cases has closed.
Subscribe To The Best Team In Conservative, Business, Technology, Lifestyle And Digital News Realtime! support@ddnewsonline.com
Check out – Discover How to work and Earn with Dailyhustle
The APC strongly denies the plaintiffs’ core allegation. In a counter-affidavit deposed by the party’s Director of Legal Services, Sanusi Samaila, the APC asserts that it never submitted any forged certificate to INEC for either the 2023 or 2027 elections. They maintain that the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) has never denied issuing the discharge certificate to President Tinubu and that a claim of forgery legally requires an official disclaimer from the issuing institution—which the plaintiffs do not have.
The APC argues that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit is built on a fundamentally flawed premise. The party pointed out that they did not submit “Form CF001” to INEC as claimed in Atiku and the ADC’s original court filings. Because the lawsuit targeted an outdated form nomenclature, the APC argues the case is technically defective from the outside.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) opposes the suit filed by Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) primarily on jurisdictional, procedural, and constitutional grounds. Represented by its legal counsel, Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN), INEC filed a preliminary objection urging the Federal High Court to dismiss the case entirely due to the following core reasons:
Manage Your Business Digitally With D-Degree Digital Hub Today Visit D-Degree Digital Hub
INEC explicitly labeled the legal action as a gross abuse of the judicial process. The commission argues that the suit is hypothetical and academic, failing to disclose any reasonable cause of action against the electoral body.
The electoral umpire contends that the action is blocked by the statute of limitations. Under pre-election guidelines, strict constitutional deadlines govern when a candidate’s eligibility can be challenged. INEC argues that because the suit was filed outside these legal windows, the court no longer has the jurisdiction to entertain it.
The current status of the case is that the Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the suit until October 13, 2026. During the most recent court session on September 28, 2026, the primary focus was confirming that all parties had been formally served and setting a definitive date to debate the plaintiffs’ request to amend their lawsuit.
By: Komolafe Barakah