The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed October 13, 2026, to hear an application by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress seeking to amend their originating summons in the suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo adjourned the matter on Monday after counsel to the plaintiffs, Joseph Silas, informed the court that the defendants had been served with the application seeking leave to amend the originating processes.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1888/2026, was instituted by Atiku and the ADC against Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
When the matter came up for further mention, Silas told the court that the originating processes had now been served on all the defendants within the period stipulated by the court and that the plaintiffs had received responses filed by the defendants and had replied to them.
The development followed an earlier controversy over service of the suit on President Tinubu, which had delayed proceedings.
Counsel to the President, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, reminded the court that during an earlier proceeding on September 1, counsel appearing for the APC, Popoola Owosanya, had offered to receive the originating processes on Tinubu’s behalf.
According to Olanipekun, the plaintiffs’ legal team declined that offer but subsequently approached the court for permission to serve the President by substituted means, leading him to accuse them of attempting to mislead the court over the difficulty in serving the President.
Justice Ekwo, however, directed the lawyers to concentrate on the matter scheduled for the day.
Silas then informed the court that the plaintiffs had filed an application seeking leave to amend their originating summons and that lawyers representing the defendants had been put on notice.
After confirming that the defendants had indeed been served with the amendment application, Justice Ekwo adjourned the proceedings.
“This case is hereby adjourned until the 13th of October 2026, for hearing of the motion to amend originating summons,” the judge held.
Atiku and the ADC commenced the action in August, asking the court to determine questions relating to Tinubu’s qualification to participate in the 2027 presidential election.
Central to their case is an allegation concerning a discrepancy between the name appearing on a National Youth Service Corps discharge certificate associated with Tinubu and the President’s official name.
The allegation remains part of the substantive dispute before the Federal High Court and has not been determined by the court.
Tinubu and the APC have denied submitting a forged certificate to INEC and have asked the court to dismiss the action.
In processes earlier filed in response to the suit, they argued, among other grounds, that Atiku and the ADC lacked the requisite legal standing to institute the case and that the action was incompetent.
Their lawyers also argued that an allegation of forgery is criminal in nature and must be proved to the required legal standard, contending that the plaintiffs had not produced evidence from the issuing institution disclaiming the certificate in question.
INEC has separately challenged the competence of the action.
The electoral commission’s objections include arguments that the action is statute-barred, that the plaintiffs lack locus standi, that the suit discloses no reasonable cause of action and that it constitutes an abuse of court process.
INEC has also raised issues relating to compliance with the Federal High Court Pre-Election Practice Directions.
The dispute over service on Tinubu had earlier become a separate issue in the proceedings.
On September 16, Justice Ekwo granted the plaintiffs permission to serve the court processes on Tinubu through the APC after their counsel told the court that efforts to effect personal service on the President had been unsuccessful.
The court ordered that the substituted service be carried out within seven days.
The APC subsequently disputed the necessity of the order, maintaining that Tinubu’s legal team had already obtained the originating processes and filed both a preliminary objection and a substantive response before the plaintiffs sought the substituted-service order.
The party said Tinubu’s lawyers had obtained certified copies of the processes on September 11, filed a preliminary objection on September 14 and filed a defence on September 15.
It consequently argued that the later application for substituted service was unnecessary because Tinubu was already represented and had responded to the action.
The plaintiffs, however, maintained during Monday’s proceedings that all necessary processes had now been served and that they had responded to the defendants’ filings.
The court has not yet considered the merits of the substantive allegations against Tinubu or the preliminary objections raised by the defendants.
Proceedings on October 13 will first focus on whether Atiku and the ADC should be granted leave to amend their originating summons.
... “Atiku, ADC Seek To Amend Suit Challenging Tinubu’s Qualification For 2027 Presidential Election” — Court Adjourns To October 13 ... TheNigeriaLawyer.