The presiding judge, Justice Muhammed Turaki, granted applications for subpoenas compelling the Speaker and Clerk of the House of Representatives, alongside INEC, to submit documents considered necessary for the determination of the case.
The applications were filed by the plaintiff, Samuel Amatonjie, a Port Harcourt-based legal practitioner, who argued that the requested documents would help the court establish the circumstances surrounding Chinda’s political defection from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the APC.
The subpoena directed at INEC specifically seeks the membership registers of the PDP and APC submitted to the electoral commission by both political parties.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, counsel to the PDP, Paul Daudu, and Chinda’s lawyer, Dike Udenna, raised concerns over the late service of the plaintiff’s response to their preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
Both lawyers consequently requested additional time to respond to the counter-affidavit.
After hearing from the parties, Justice Turaki directed counsel to file and exchange the necessary court processes before adjourning the matter until December 10, 2026, for hearing.
Amatonjie instituted the suit to seek judicial interpretation of Section 68 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, in connection with Chinda’s defection from the PDP to the APC.
One of the key questions before the court is whether, following a combined interpretation of Sections 177(c) and 68 of the Constitution, Chinda validly defected to the APC before he was screened and declared the party’s governorship candidate on May 9, 2026.
Other respondents in the case include INEC, the PDP, the APC, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the National Assembly.
Speaking to journalists outside the courtroom, PDP counsel, Daudu, said the request for an adjournment was necessary to allow the defence adequate time to respond to the documents served by the plaintiff.
Amatonjie, however, described the case as a matter of public interest, stressing the need for judicial clarification on constitutional provisions governing political defections.
He maintained that the legal action was intended to promote constitutional compliance and ensure that political developments do not undermine the provisions of the country’s supreme law.
