Amupitan Accuses Sowore of Seeking Tinubu’s 1999, 2023 Election Documents to “Embarrass” INEC

The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, has accused human rights activist and African Action Congress presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore of seeking President Bola Tinubu’s 1999 and 2023 election documents in bad faith, alleging that the request is intended to embarrass the electoral commission.

The accusation was contained in a Motion on Notice filed on November 10, 2026, asking the Federal High Court in Abuja to set aside a subpoena issued on October 26 directing the INEC chairman to produce the documents and testify in Sowore’s ongoing criminal trial, ValidViewNetwork reports .

THE SUBPOEN

The subpoena, issued by Justice Mohammed Garba Umar in Charge No. FHC/CR/484/2025, directs Amupitan to produce two sets of electoral documents submitted by Tinubu to INEC.

The first is INEC Form CF001, including the “Affidavit in Respect of Lost Certificates,” submitted by Tinubu as a candidate for the Lagos State governorship election in 1999. The second is the Form CF001 submitted by Tinubu for the 2023 presidential election .

The court directed Amupitan to appear at Courtroom 5, Fourth Floor, Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja, at 9 a.m. on November 11, 2026, to produce the documents and testify on behalf of the defendant.

THE APPLICATION

Amupitan, through his lawyers led by Dr Alex A. Izinyon, SAN, filed a Motion on Notice on November 10 asking the court to set aside the subpoena.

In the grounds supporting the application, the INEC chairman described the subpoena as “mala fide, bad faith, irrelevant, fishy and speculative”.

The affidavit, sworn by Mendie Akpan, a litigation secretary in the law firm representing Amupitan, states that the defendant’s application was brought “malafide and in bad faith to embarrass the establishment”.

The application also argues that the documents sought are unknown to the applicant in the form described and are not in his custody.

“There is no form known as INEC CF01 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,” the application states.

It further contends that Amupitan was not personally served with the subpoena, although it was delivered to INEC headquarters in Abuja on November 6, 2026, at about 12:30 p.m.

THE CONTRADICTION

Amupitan’s response to the subpoena has been marked by a striking inconsistency.

At a press conference in Abuja on Monday, the INEC chairman said he had not received the order. “I have not received the order. So when I receive the order, I would look at what it says and then know what to do accordingly,” he said.

Yet on the same day, his lawyers filed a Motion on Notice dated November 10 seeking to set aside the subpoena. The application acknowledges that the subpoena was served on INEC’s Litigation and Prosecution Department on November 6 .

The contradiction is difficult to reconcile.

ADVERTISEMENT

If the subpoena was served on the commission’s litigation department, and if the chairman’s lawyers were able to file a detailed motion challenging its validity, it is unclear on what basis Amupitan claims he has not received the order.

THE CONTEXT

The subpoena is part of Sowore’s defence in a criminal trial instituted by the Federal Republic of Nigeria over his description of President Tinubu as a criminal .

Sowore’s defence team, led by Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, is seeking the documents to support its case. The 1999 Form CF001 is particularly significant because it includes the affidavit relating to lost certificates, an issue that has featured in public controversies surrounding the President’s educational credentials .

In a related ruling, Justice Umar set aside an earlier subpoena issued against the DSS lead prosecuting counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, holding that lawyers are generally protected by professional confidentiality .

The court also approved a subpoena against APC chieftain Joe Igbokwe as a proposed defence witness .

THE ANALYTICAL LENS

There are two ways to read Amupitan’s application.

The first is that it is a legitimate legal manoeuvre. The subpoena may be defective in form. The documents may not be in the chairman’s personal custody. The service may not have complied with the strict requirements of the law. These are arguments that any competent lawyer would make.

The second is that it is an attempt to avoid producing documents that could be politically embarrassing. The 1999 Form CF001, with its affidavit about lost certificates, goes to the heart of a controversy that has followed President Tinubu for years.

If the document is produced in court, it will become part of the public record. If it is not, the controversy will continue to simmer.

Amupitan’s description of the request as “bad faith” and “intended to embarrass the establishment” suggests that he sees the second reading as the correct one.

But the law does not recognise “embarrassment” as a ground for refusing a subpoena. If the documents are relevant, and if they are in the commission’s custody, the court can compel their production.

The application is pending. The court will decide. And the question of whether the INEC chairman will appear with the documents, or with an excuse, remains unanswered. ValidViewNetwork reports.