The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan (SAN), has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja in a bid to set aside a subpoena requiring the commission to produce President Bola Tinubu’s election records from the 1999 Lagos State governorship race and the 2023 presidential election.
The subpoena was secured by the defence team of human rights activist Omoyele Sowore, who is standing trial over statements in which he described Tinubu as a criminal. Amupitan, acting through his counsel, Dr Alex Izinyon (SAN), filed a motion on notice dated November 10, 2026, asking the court to nullify the subpoena issued by Justice Mohammed Garba Umar on October 26, 2026.
According to court filings, the subpoena was served on INEC’s headquarters in Abuja on November 6, 2026, and directed the commission’s chairman to produce Tinubu’s Form CF001, including an affidavit concerning lost certificates submitted during his 1999 Lagos governorship candidacy. It also sought the corresponding document submitted by Tinubu for the 2023 presidential election.
INEC Chairman Faults Subpoena as Defective
In his application, Amupitan argued that the subpoena was defective, contradictory and unenforceable. He contended that the order was not personally served on him, as the law requires, and that the documents described in the subpoena were not in the commission’s custody in the form specified.
The INEC chairman further submitted that no form known as CF01 exists for either the 1999 Lagos State governorship election or the 2023 presidential election as described in the subpoena. In the motion, he stated that the subpoena duces tecum was not personally served on him as required by law, and that the forms described were unknown and not in his custody.
The application, brought pursuant to Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution, also accused the defence of seeking the documents in bad faith and for purposes unrelated to the criminal proceedings. One of the grounds described the subpoena as void ab initio, ungrantable, inconsistent and contradictory.
Affidavit Details Mode of Service
In a supporting affidavit, Mendie Akan, a litigation secretary in Izinyon’s law firm, stated that the subpoena was served on INEC’s Litigation and Prosecution Department at its Abuja headquarters on November 6, 2026, at about 12.30pm. Akan, who said she was authorised by Amupitan and her employers to depose to the affidavit, maintained that the INEC chairman was not personally served with the subpoena.
She also stated that Amupitan was not a party to the criminal proceedings and was not the maker of the documents being sought. The affidavit further alleged that the subpoena was obtained in bad faith with the aim of embarrassing the electoral commission.
Background to the Subpoena
The subpoena followed an application by Sowore’s lead defence counsel, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), seeking to compel INEC to produce the historical election records. The documents are expected to provide evidence relating to Tinubu’s electoral submissions during his 1999 governorship candidacy in Lagos State and his 2023 presidential candidacy.
The criminal case, marked FHC/CR/484/2025, is between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Sowore. The latest application introduces a fresh legal dispute into the trial, with the court expected to determine whether INEC should be compelled to produce the requested documents or whether the subpoena should be set aside.
What the Court Will Decide
The dispute centres on two broad questions: whether the subpoena was properly served on the INEC chairman, and whether the commission holds the documents in the form demanded by the defence. The court’s ruling will determine whether the electoral body must open its records in the ongoing criminal trial or whether the subpoena falls away.
For now, the matter remains before the Federal High Court in Abuja, with the INEC chairman pressing for the subpoena to be struck out and the defence seeking to hold the commission to the terms of the order issued in October.
