A Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to produce documents relating to the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship primary in the state.
The order followed a request by Samuel Amatonjie, who is challenging the eligibility of the APC governorship candidate, Kingsley Chinda, over questions surrounding his defection from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the ruling party.
Amatonjie is asking the court to examine the circumstances surrounding Chinda’s movement from the PDP to the APC and determine whether he had fulfilled the constitutional requirements to contest the governorship election on the platform of his new party.
The plaintiff had approached the court seeking access to official documents submitted to INEC by the APC ahead of its governorship primary.
He also requested legislative records from the National Assembly, which he considers relevant to the legal questions raised in his suit.
During proceedings on Wednesday, the plaintiff’s counsel explained why the requested documents were necessary for the determination of the case.
After considering the applications, Justice Muhammed Turaki granted the requests and directed INEC to produce the relevant materials.
Among the documents sought by Amatonjie is a certified true copy of the APC membership register submitted to INEC on April 20, 2026.
He also wants the court to compel the electoral commission to release the letter through which the APC notified it of its planned governorship primary in Rivers State.
The documents are expected to provide information about the party’s membership records and its preparations for the primary election that produced Chinda as its governorship candidate.
Apart from the INEC documents, the court also issued a subpoena directing the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk to the National Assembly to produce certified copies of the House of Representatives Hansard covering proceedings from April to June 2, 2026.
The legislative records are expected to assist the court in examining the constitutional provisions raised by the plaintiff, particularly those concerning the defection of elected lawmakers from one political party to another.
At the centre of the dispute is the interpretation of Sections 68 and 177(c) of the 1999 Constitution.
Amatonjie wants the court to determine whether Chinda could legally be regarded as having defected to the APC by May 9, 2026, when he was screened and subsequently declared the party’s governorship candidate.
Section 68 of the Constitution contains provisions governing the circumstances under which members of the National Assembly may lose their seats after defecting from the political parties on whose platforms they were elected.
One of the issues addressed by the provision concerns whether a lawmaker can justify leaving a political party where there is a division within the party or a merger involving the party.
Section 177(c), on the other hand, establishes the requirement that a person seeking election as governor must be a member of a political party and be sponsored by that party.
The plaintiff’s case seeks to establish how these constitutional provisions apply to Chinda’s political movement and his subsequent emergence as the APC governorship candidate.
However, the proceedings were not concluded on Wednesday after lawyers representing the PDP and Chinda requested additional time to respond to the plaintiff’s latest filing.
Counsel to the PDP, Paul Daudu (SAN), and Chinda’s lawyer, Dike Udenna, informed the court that they had received Amatonjie’s response to their preliminary objection only recently.
They argued that they needed sufficient time to study the plaintiff’s arguments and prepare their reply before the matter could proceed.
The PDP had earlier filed an objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the suit.
Speaking with journalists after the proceedings, Daudu explained that the objection had been filed since September 29, but the plaintiff’s response was not served on the defence until the previous day.
He said the legal team was entitled to time to examine the response and file its own processes.
“The reason for the adjournment is that we have filed an objection of jurisdiction, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear this matter, which we had filed since 29th of September. But it was only yesterday that we were served with his response to our objection in jurisdiction.
“And we are entitled to almost seven days to respond. So, we want to take our time, study what he has filed and file our response,” he said.
The lawyer’s explanation indicates that the question of whether the court has the authority to hear the substantive dispute remains one of the issues to be addressed before the case can proceed further.
Meanwhile, Amatonjie maintained that obtaining the documents from INEC and the National Assembly was necessary to support his arguments.
He explained that the applications were specifically intended to compel the relevant institutions to make available records that could help establish the facts surrounding the dispute.
“We applied to the court, to my Lord, for a subpoena to be issued on the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to produce certain documents, and also a subpoena to be issued on the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk to the National Assembly for them also to produce certain documents,” he said.
Justice Turaki subsequently directed all parties to file and exchange their necessary court processes ahead of the next hearing.
The judge adjourned the matter until December 10, 2026, when the case is expected to come up for hearing.
