The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge an order directing it to produce documents relating to President Bola Tinubu’s 1999 Lagos State governorship election and his 2023 presidential election.
INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, filed an application seeking to overturn the subpoena issued by the court on November 6 during the ongoing cyberbullying trial of African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore.
Through his lawyer, Alex Izinyon, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Amupitan is asking the court to declare the subpoena invalid and unenforceable.
The INEC chairman argued that the order was not personally served on him as required by law. He also questioned the description of the documents requested by Sowore’s legal team, insisting that the records were either wrongly identified or did not exist in the form stated in the subpoena.
The commission further argued that the documents being requested had no connection with the criminal case against Sowore. It accused the defence team of making the request in bad faith and questioned the reason behind seeking the records during the ongoing proceedings.
Among the documents listed in the subpoena are Tinubu’s INEC Form CF01 for the 1999 Lagos State governorship election, including the affidavit relating to lost certificates, and his Form CF01 submitted as a presidential candidate in the 2023 general election.
However, Amupitan maintained that INEC does not have the documents in its possession as described by Sowore’s lawyers.
In the application, the commission stated that no records matching the description of the requested CF01 forms for the two elections existed in its custody.
The electoral body also challenged the basis for issuing the subpoena, describing the request as speculative, irrelevant and capable of causing unnecessary embarrassment to the commission.
In an affidavit attached to the application, INEC explained that the criminal proceedings involved the Federal Republic of Nigeria as the complainant and Sowore as the defendant.
It further argued that the INEC chairman was not a party to the prosecution and should not be compelled to produce documents that had no direct connection with the allegations against the activist.
The commission maintained that the case was strictly between the Federal Government and Sowore, questioning why its chairman was being brought into the proceedings through the subpoena.
Meanwhile, Justice Mohammed Umar has fixed November 17 for the continuation of Sowore’s cyberbullying trial at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The court session scheduled for Wednesday could not take place after the presiding judge was reportedly absent due to cold.
In another development, the court had on Monday granted a separate subpoena request by Sowore’s defence team, directing a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Joe Igbokwe, to appear as a defence witness.
Sowore’s lawyers are expected to question Igbokwe about his public statements and reactions to the activist’s social media posts.
The defence team is particularly interested in his comments concerning publications in which Sowore described President Tinubu as a criminal.
Igbokwe’s appearance is expected to form part of the evidence the defence intends to present as the trial continues.