A Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt has issued subpoenas directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the National Assembly to produce documents in a suit challenging the defection of the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate in Rivers State, Kingsley Chinda, from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
The court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Turaki, granted the applications filed by a Port Harcourt-based legal practitioner, Samuel Amatoji, who is seeking the interpretation of Section 68 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, concerning Chinda’s defection from the PDP to the APC.
The subpoena directed the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the National Assembly to produce the National Assembly’s Hansard covering the period from April 1 to June 2, 2026.
INEC was also directed to produce the letter dated April 28, 2026, reportedly sent to the commission by the APC to notify it of its governorship primary, alongside the party’s membership register submitted to the electoral body.
At the resumed hearing, Amatoji told the court that the documents were necessary for the determination of the suit. The court subsequently granted the applications.
However, counsel to the PDP, Paul Daudu, and counsel to Chinda, Dike Udenna, complained about the late service of the plaintiff’s response to their preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
They requested additional time to respond to the counter-affidavit, following which Justice Turaki directed the parties to file and exchange the necessary court processes.
The matter was adjourned to December 10, 2026, for hearing on the substantive suit.
Amatoji is asking the court to determine whether, upon a combined interpretation of Sections 177(c) and 68 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, Ogundu-Chinda validly defected from the PDP to the APC before being screened and declared the party’s governorship candidate on May 9, 2026.
Other respondents in the suit include INEC, the PDP, the APC, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the National Assembly.
Speaking with journalists after the proceedings, PDP counsel, Paul Daudu, explained that the request for adjournment was necessary because the plaintiff’s response to their preliminary objection was served on them only a day before the hearing.
He said the defendants were entitled to seven days to respond to the processes, adding that they needed adequate time to prepare their reply.
On his part, Amatoji described the suit as public interest litigation aimed at protecting the Constitution and ensuring compliance with its provisions.
He maintained that Chinda was not eligible to contest the 2027 governorship election on the APC platform, insisting that he remained a member of the PDP at the material time.
“Kingsley Chinda ought not to be on the ballot. In other words, he ought not to be the flag bearer of the All Progressives Congress, considering the fact that we believe at all times material to this case, he was a member of the PDP, and we still believe that till date he is still a member of the People’s Democratic Party and not a member of the APC,” he said.
Amatoji explained that the suit was instituted to seek judicial interpretation of the constitutional provisions governing political defections and determine whether Ogundu-Chinda’s movement to the APC complied with the law.
He said the documents sought through the subpoenas would help establish the circumstances surrounding the alleged defection and the subsequent emergence of Ogundu-Chinda as the APC governorship candidate.
The lawyer further argued that the issue went beyond personal or political disagreements, describing it as a constitutional question with implications for Nigeria’s democracy.
According to him, public-spirited Nigerians and legal practitioners have a responsibility to approach the courts whenever the actions or inactions of political actors threaten constitutional provisions.
“If we don’t do that, these politicians will keep on advancing their territories, and the Constitution will be trampled continuously. It will not be good for legal practitioners, society and the Constitution, which is the supreme law we are all meant to defend,” he said.
Amatoji also maintained that the parties and institutions served with the subpoenas were expected to comply with the court’s directives, stressing that the documents were public records relevant to the case.
