Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has asked the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, to grant an order allowing him to amend his suit against President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Mr Atiku and the ADC, in the suit, urged Justice Inyang Ekwo to disqualify Mr Tinubu and the APC from contesting in the 2027 presidential election over alleged submission of a forged National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The plaintiffs, in the originating summons marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, sued Mr Tinubu, the APC, and INEC as first, second, and third defendants, respectively.
Mr Tinubu and the APC prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety, as it was incompetent and the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the case.
In a joint counter affidavit filed on September 9, the first and second defendants denied submitting any forged certificate to the commission for either the 2023 or 2027 presidential election.
The duo, through the APC’s director of legal services, Sanusi Samaila, averred that they did not submit any Form CF001 to INEC for the 2023 or 2027 poll as claimed by the plaintiffs.
They stated that the NYSC did not deny issuing a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate to the first defendant at the end of his service year.
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 first and second defendants’ action of submitting the president’s personal particulars to INEC.
Mr Tinubu and APC, also in a written address attached to the application and filed by Akin Olujinmi, SAN, the senior lawyer raised several objections to the suit.
Mr 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 settled law that the evidence required to prove a certificate is forged is a disclaimer from the institution said to have issued it, citing a previous Supreme Court decision to support his argument.
According to Mr 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, Mr Atiku and ADC produced no evidence from the NYSC Directorate disclaiming issuance of a discharge certificate to the first defendant.
He stated that the suit is hypothetical and academic in nature and devoid of real facts.
Mr 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, Mr 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 court’s
inherent jurisdiction, 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 to deem the amended originating summons filed on their application as properly filed.
Giving four grounds for granting their application, the plaintiffs said they filed the suit on August 14, seeking the reliefs contained in the originating summons.
Mr Atiku and ADC said that after filing the originating summons, they noticed a few errors, especially in 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 a 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 first plaintiff (Atiku) and attaching clearer copies of Exhibits referred to, but which were not available to 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 amendment in the interest of justice.”
The court set September 28 for the hearing.
(NAN)
