COURT SET OCTOBER 13 TO HEAR ATIKU’S APPLICATION AGAINST APC, TINUBU

They said there was also the need to specifically set out the particulars of the alleged fraud in their 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,” and that no new issue had been added to the amended originating summons and no additional prayers sought.

Besides, they submitted that as plaintiffs, they “are entitled to make this amended in the interest of justice.”

Tinubu, in a counter affidavit filed on Sept. 24, opposed the application to amend the suit.

Thr president, in the counter affidavit deposed to by Moses Adoga, a litigation support officer, in the law firm of Wole Olanipekun, SAN, his lead counsel, dissgreed with Atiku’s submission.

Adoga said contrary to the reliefs sought by Atiku in his amended originating summons marked as Exhibit “P1,” he noticed that the ADC presidential candidate also sought to amend the questions for determination and reliefs sought.

The officer said he observed that Atiku sought to introduce an entirely new relief, which was not sought in the originating summons, with which the action was initiated.

“I also observed that the plaintiffs seek to introduce new documents through the affidavit, by substituting FORM CF001 for FORM EC9, while seeking to introduce entirely new paragraphs in the supporting affidavit to the originating summons.”

According to him, the amendment sought to be made by the plaintiffs essentially attempts to alter the entire case of the plaintiffs as presented before this honourable court.

Adoga submitted that the said motion was misconceived.

“The entire facts deposed to in the affidavit in support of the motion on notice, including Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are untrue, misconceived or skewed to mislead this honourable court.”

The officer said he observed that the plaintiffs made it clear that their purported cause of action is predicated on the documents submitted by the president to INEC.

He, however, argued that Atiku’s substantive suit is statute barred, having been filed on Aug. 14 while the cause of action which he is challenging arose on July 11 when Tinubu’s name was submitted to INEC, even though the commission published the particulars of all presidential candidates with their submitted certificates on Aug. 1.

Accirding to him, the timeline for institution of actions is prescribed by the 1999 Constitution (as amened) and not the Practice Direction of this Honourable Court.

“The Practice Direction does not entitle any party to file or seek to amend their originating summons upon the expiration of the time prescribed by the constitution for the institution of the action,” he added.

Besides, he said that unlike Atiku’s reliefs, the amendment was asking for more than just fixing mistakes in how documents were described.

He also said that trying to include details about fraud in the affidavit shows that the original summons didn’t have those details, making it invalid.

Adoga said an invalid starting document can’t be changed.

He also said the new version of the summons shows they want to add another request.

Adoga asked the court to reject the request to change the document for the sake of fairness.

APC equally opposed the motion to amend the suit.

NAN earlier reported that INEC haf also opposed Atiku’s motion to amend the suit.

The commission, in a counter affidavit to the plaintiffs’ motion on notice for amendment filed on Sept. 10, said its preliminary objection, filed on Sept. 7 and served on the plaintiffs, is still pending and undetermined.

Mendie Akpan, a litigation secretary in the law firm of Alex Izinyon & Co, who deposed to the counter affidavit, argued that Atiku’s motion to amend and the proposed amended originating summons is seeking to substitute or bring in a new cause of action.

She further submitted that the motion sought to attach a written deposition not filed within the the constitutionally prescribed period, reformulate reliefs and cure the CF001/EC9 confusion.

The lawyer argued that the proposed amendment, if granted, would have the effect of introducing a fresh or different cause of action.

Alternatively, she said it would have the effect of curing a jurisdictional defect, after the expiration of the 14-day period prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution for instituting a pre-election suit.

The matter is expected to be heard by Justice Ekwok on Monday, Sept. 28.

(NAN)