The Independent National Electoral Commission has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to set aside a subpoena directing its chairman, Joash Amupitan, to produce President Bola Tinubu’s election records. The commission’s lawyer, Alex Izinyon, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, filed the application on 10 November. The case involves Omoyele Sowore, the African Action Congress presidential candidate, who has pleaded not guilty to charges over social media posts calling the president a criminal.
The subpoena, issued on 26 October, seeks the 1999 Lagos governorship form, including an affidavit on lost certificates, and the 2023 presidential nomination form. The commission gave four grounds. It said Amupitan was not personally served. It said no form called “INEC CF01” exists for either election. It said the documents are not in his custody. And it said the defence acted in bad faith. Justice Mohammed Umar had directed Amupitan to testify for the defence, and he is due in court on 11 November. The court has not ruled on the application.
The procedural points are stronger than they look. Personal service is a basic requirement, and a subpoena that skips it is vulnerable. The naming point is harder to answer. If the form number does not exist, the defence has asked for something that cannot be produced, and the request becomes a fishing expedition. The custody point is the most interesting. A commission that keeps a register and archives nomination papers should be able to say where they are.
The precedent is the 2019 and 2023 election petition cycles, when litigants sought documents from the commission and the commission resisted on grounds of confidentiality and custody. The courts generally ordered production, sometimes after delay. The pattern is a commission that treats disclosure as a threat rather than a duty.
The timing is unfortunate. The commission is one month from publishing a cleaned voter register and two months from a presidential election. Its chairman is now a witness in a criminal trial involving the leading opposition candidate’s speech. Whatever the ruling, the appearance matters. A commission that resists producing its own records invites suspicion it has something to hide, even when it does not.
For the reader, the practical question is whether the documents exist. If they do, the commission should produce them and end the argument. If they do not, the commission should say so in an affidavit rather than in a filing. A subpoena fought on service is a subpoena fought on a technicality.
The winners are the commission, if the application succeeds, and the defence, if it fails. The losers are public confidence, which suffers either way, and the election calendar, which now carries one more contested file.
Winners: INEC, if the subpoena is set aside. Sowore’s defence, if production is ordered. Losers: Public confidence in the commission, and any voter who wanted the campaign to be about policy rather than paperwork.
Bottom Line: If the records exist, produce them. If they do not, swear an affidavit. Fighting a subpoena on service looks like a technicality, not a defence.