Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) have applied to amend their suit challenging President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned the case until October 13 for the hearing of the application to amend the originating summons.
At Monday’s proceedings, counsel to the plaintiffs, Joseph Silas, told the court that all defendants had been served with the relevant processes and that the plaintiffs had received and responded to their filings.
The proceedings had previously been delayed by a dispute over service of the court processes on Tinubu.
Counsel to the President, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, recalled that at an earlier hearing on September 1, counsel to the second defendant, INEC, had offered to receive the processes on behalf of the President.
Olanipekun said the offer was rejected by the plaintiffs’ counsel, who later sought an order permitting substituted service on Tinubu.
Justice Ekwo urged the lawyers to focus on the matter before the court.
Silas subsequently informed the court that the plaintiffs had filed an application seeking to amend their originating summons and that the defendants had been served.
After confirming that the parties had received the application, Justice Ekwo adjourned the case to October 13.
The suit centres on an alleged discrepancy involving the name on a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Tinubu’s official name.
The allegation forms part of the substantive issues yet to be determined by the court.
On September 16, the court granted the plaintiffs permission to serve Tinubu through the All Progressives Congress (APC), after they said attempts to personally serve the President had proved difficult.
The APC subsequently challenged the substituted-service order, arguing that Tinubu’s lawyers had already collected the originating processes and filed his defence before the application for substituted service was made.
INEC has also challenged the competence of the suit, raising issues including the plaintiffs’ locus standi and alleged abuse of court process.
