NEWS
JUST IN: Rivers APC Governorship: Court Orders INEC, National Assembly to Produce Key Documents in Kingsley Ogundu Chinda Eligibility Suit
A Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to produce critical documents relating to the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship primary, in a legal battle challenging the eligibility of the party’s governorship candidate, Hon. Kingsley Ogundu Chinda
The order, issued by the presiding judge, Justice Muhammed Turaki, followed an application by the plaintiff, Samuel Amatonjie, who is seeking to establish whether Hon. Chinda was constitutionally qualified to emerge as the APC governorship candidate following his defection from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Specifically, the court directed INEC to produce certified true copies of the APC membership register submitted to the commission on April 20, 2026, alongside the letter formally notifying INEC of the party’s intention to conduct its governorship primaries.
In a related development, the court 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 the period between April 2026 and June 2, 2026.
The documents are considered significant to the plaintiff’s case, particularly in determining the constitutional and legislative circumstances surrounding Chinda’s defection from the PDP to the APC and his subsequent emergence as the party’s governorship candidate.
When the matter came up for hearing on Wednesday, November 5, 2026, Amatonjie drew the court’s attention to the importance of the requested documents and explained why they were necessary for the proper determination of the suit.
After listening to his submissions, Justice Turaki granted the applications, paving the way for the relevant institutions and officials to produce the requested records before the court.
However, the proceedings also featured arguments over the timing of the service of court processes, as counsel representing the PDP, Paul Daudu, SAN, and counsel to Chinda, Dike Udenna, complained about what they described as the late service of the plaintiff’s response to their preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
The lawyers informed the court that they needed additional time to examine the plaintiff’s response and prepare their respective replies.
Daudu explained that the PDP had filed its preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction since September 29, 2026, but received the plaintiff’s response only a day before the Wednesday proceedings.
Speaking with journalists after the hearing, the senior advocate said the defence team was entitled to approximately seven days to study the response and file its reply.
“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 stated.
Amatonjie, on his part, explained that the applications for subpoenas were part of the legal steps he had taken to obtain official records that could assist the court in resolving the questions raised in his suit.
According to him, the parties had earlier exchanged preliminary objections and counter-affidavits, requiring him to respond before the defendants could file further replies.
“On the last adjourned date, preliminary objections were served on us and counter-affidavits.
“We are to respond to those preliminary objections and counter-affidavits. And as the defendants, they still needed time to make a reply to our own response.
“And also, on our part, 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.
“The subpoena that was issued on them is simply for them to produce the answer of the National Assembly,” he stated.
At the centre of the legal dispute is the interpretation of Section 68 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, particularly its provisions concerning the defection of elected lawmakers from one political party to another.
Amatonjie is asking the court to determine whether a combined interpretation of Sections 177(c) and 68 of the Constitution permits Chinda to be recognised as having validly defected from the PDP to the APC as of May 9, 2026, when he was screened and subsequently declared the APC governorship candidate.
The suit, therefore, seeks judicial clarification on the constitutional implications of the defection and whether the circumstances surrounding it satisfy the legal requirements for recognising Ogundu-Chinda’s candidacy.
Following submissions from the lawyers representing the parties, Justice Turaki directed all sides to file and exchange the necessary court processes to ensure that the matter would be ready for hearing.
The court subsequently adjourned the case until December 10, 2026, when proceedings are expected to continue.
The production of the requested INEC and National Assembly documents could become an important part of the proceedings as the court considers the constitutional questions raised over Chinda’s eligibility to contest the Rivers State governorship election on the platform of the APC.