INEC Chair Amupitan: Federal High Court Bid to Quash Tinubu Records Subpoena

• INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, has moved to quash a subpoena seeking President Bola Tinubu's 1999 and 2023 election records.
• The subpoena was obtained by Omoyele Sowore's defence team for his criminal trial, where he is accused of describing Tinubu as a criminal.
• Amupitan argues the subpoena is defective, citing lack of personal service and the non-existence of the specified "Form CF001" for the relevant elections.
• An affidavit supporting the motion further alleges the subpoena was obtained in bad faith and was not properly served on the INEC chairman.
• The Federal High Court will now decide whether to compel INEC to produce the documents or set aside the subpoena.

This development underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural rules for issuing subpoenas, particularly regarding personal service and the precise description of requested documents.

The Chairman of Nigeria's Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan (SAN), has initiated legal proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking to invalidate a subpoena that demands the production of President Bola Tinubu's historical election documents. This legal maneuver aims to quash a directive compelling the electoral body to provide records pertaining to Tinubu's 1999 Lagos State governorship bid and his 2023 presidential election campaign. The challenge, filed on November 10, 2026, through Amupitan's counsel, Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN), targets a subpoena originally issued by Justice Mohammed Garba Umar on October 26.

The subpoena was procured by the legal team representing human rights activist Omoyele Sowore, who is currently facing prosecution. Sowore's criminal case stems from statements he made in which he allegedly characterized President Tinubu as a criminal. The defence intends to use the requested Nigeria election records subpoena as evidence in these ongoing proceedings, believing they will shed light on Tinubu's past electoral submissions. The INEC chair quash Tinubu records subpoena action now introduces a significant procedural hurdle in Sowore's trial.

Professor Amupitan's application to set aside the subpoena asserts that the legal instrument is fundamentally flawed, contradictory, and therefore unenforceable. A primary contention raised by the Prof. Joash Amupitan subpoena challenge is the alleged failure of personal service. Amupitan argues that the subpoena duces tecum was not personally delivered to him, as mandated by legal requirements, despite being served at INEC's headquarters in Abuja on November 6. This procedural lapse forms a critical basis for his motion.

Furthermore, the INEC Chairman disputes the very existence and custody of the documents as specified in the subpoena. The directive specifically requested Tinubu Form CF001 subpoena, including an affidavit concerning lost certificates for the 1999 Lagos governorship, and an equivalent document for the 2023 presidential election. Amupitan's motion explicitly states that "there is no form known as INEC CFOl for the Lagos State Governorship Election 1999, and INEC Form CF01 for the 2023 Presidential Election as such form as described are unknown and are not in the custody of the applicant." This argument suggests a disconnect between the defence's request and the actual records maintained by the commission.

Further substantiating the application to quash, an affidavit was submitted by Mendie Akan, a litigation secretary from Dr. Alex Izinyon's law firm. Akan, acting under authorization from both Amupitan and her employers, confirmed that the subpoena was delivered to INEC's Litigation and Prosecution Department at its Abuja headquarters on November 6, around 12:30 pm. Crucially, this affidavit reiterates that the INEC Chairman himself was not personally served with the document, reinforcing a central argument of the Federal High Court subpoena motion.

The affidavit also clarifies that Professor Amupitan is neither a party to the criminal proceedings against Sowore nor the original creator of the documents being sought. Beyond procedural irregularities, the application brought pursuant to Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution, also levels accusations of improper motive. It alleges that the subpoena was obtained in bad faith, with the intention to embarrass the electoral commission, and for purposes unrelated to the actual criminal proceedings. Consequently, the motion characterizes the subpoena as "void ab initio, ungrantable, inconsistent and contradictory," highlighting the depth of the legal challenge.

This latest development introduces a fresh and significant legal dispute into the ongoing criminal trial of Omoyele Sowore, marked FHC/CR/484/2025. The court is now tasked with determining whether INEC must comply with the demand to produce the requested Omoyele Sowore criminal case records or if the INEC subpoena duces tecum should indeed be set aside. The outcome will have direct implications for the evidence available to Sowore's defence, which had sought these historical documents to support its case.

This development underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural rules for issuing subpoenas, particularly regarding personal service and the precise description of requested documents. Lawyers seeking information from public bodies like INEC must ensure their subpoenas are technically sound to avoid challenges based on procedural defects or the non-existence of specified forms. Such technical oversights can lead to significant delays or the outright rejection of evidence requests, as demonstrated by this high-profile Nigeria election records subpoena challenge.

This development underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural rules for issuing subpoenas, particularly regarding personal service and precise description of requested documents. Lawyers seeking information from public bodies like INEC must ensure their subpoenas are technically sound to avoid challenges based on procedural defects or the non-existence of specified forms, which can lead to significant delays or outright rejection of evidence requests.

Source: Original reporting via PUNCH