*Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.
Presidential candidate of African Democratic Congress (ADC), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has prayed the Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja to grant an order allowing him to amend his suit against President Bola Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
Atiku and ADC, in the suit, had urged Justice Inyang Ekwo to disqualify President Tinubu and APC from contesting in the 2027 presidential election over alleged submission of forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to INEC.
The plaintiffs, in the originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, sued President, APC and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.
But Tinubu and APC prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirty for being incompetent and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to Institute the case.
In a joint counter affidavit filed on Sept. 9, the 1st and 2nd defendants denied submitting any forged certificate to the commission either for the 2023 or 2027 presidential elections.
The duo, through the APC’s Director of Legal Services, Mr Sanusi Samaila, averred that they did not submit any Form CF001 to INEC for 2023 or 2027 poll as claimed by the plaintiffs.
They stated that the NYSC has never denied issuing National Youth service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to the 1st defendant at the end of his service yestate
They argued that contrary to Paragraph 27 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, no constitutional provision had been breached nor had any injustice been done to the plaintiffs by the 1st and 2nd defendant’s action of submission of the president’s personal particulars to INEC.
Tinubu and APC, also in a written address attached to the application and filed by Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, the senior lawyer raised a number of objections to the suit.
Olujinmi observed that though the plaintiffs’ complaint is an allegation of forgery which is no doubt a crime, he said such allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, citing Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, among others.
He said it is a settied law that the evidence required to prove that a certificate is forged is a disclaimer from the institution that is said to have issued the certificate, citing a previous Supreme Court decision to back his argument.
According to Olujinmi, without evidence from the institution or body that is purported to have issued the certificate or other document stating that it did not issue the certificate or document or that any part of the certificate or document is not made by it, it would be idle and useless to contend that it is forged.
He said the apex court had also held that “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.”
The lawyer, however, submitted that in the instant case, Atiku and ADC had produced no evidence from NYSC Directorate, disclaiming issuance of discharge certificate to the 1st defendant.
He stated that the suit is hypothetical and academic in nature and devoid of real facts.
Olujinmi, who described the suit as “incompetent, being a pre-election matter, ” said the plaintiffs lacked the “locus standi” to challenge President Tinubu’s candidacy of APC.
He prayed the court to uphold their preliminary objection and dismiss the suit.
Meanwhile, Atiku and ADC, in a motion on notice brought pursuant to Paragraph 7(8) of the FHC (Pre-election) Practice Directions, 2006 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, and seen on Friday, sought an amendment to the suit.
In the two reliefs, they sought an order granting leave to them to amend their originating summons.
They also prayed the court for an order deeming the amended originating summons filed upon their application, as properly filed amended originating summons.
Giving four grounds why their application should be granted, the plaintiffs said they filed the suit on Aug. 14, seeking the reliefs contained in the originating summons.
Atiku and ADC said that after filing the originating summons, they noticed a few errors, especially on the nomenclature of the INEC forms attached to their affidavit which was referred to as Form CF001, instead of the now Form EC9A.
They said there was also the need to specifically set out the particulars of the alleged fraud in their affidavit (which are already contained in the said affidavit), including a written deposition of the 1st plaintiff (Atiku) and attaching clearer copies of Exhibits referred to, but were not available with the plaintiffs as at the time of filing the suit.
They said these would replace “the one presently attached, but is inelegant.”
Besides, they submitted that as plaintiffs, they “are entitled to make this amended in the interest of justice.”
The case, which came up on Sept. 1 for mention, had been fixed for Sept. 28 for hearing by the judge.