A Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the National Assembly to produce documents in a suit challenging the eligibility of Kingsley Ogundu Chinda as the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship candidate in Rivers State.

Justice Muhammed Turaki granted the applications following submissions by Samuel Amatonjie, the plaintiff and a Port Harcourt-based legal practitioner, who argued that the documents were necessary for the determination of the suit.

The order against INEC requires the commission to produce the membership registers of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the APC submitted to it by both political parties.

Paul Daudu, counsel to the PDP, and Dike Udenna, counsel to Chinda, raised concerns over the late service of the plaintiff’s response to their preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction.

They consequently sought time to respond to the counter-affidavit filed by the plaintiff.

Justice Turaki, after listening to the parties, directed counsel to file and exchange the necessary court processes and adjourned the matter until December 10, 2026, for hearing.

Amatonjie instituted the suit seeking the court’s interpretation of Section 68 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, in relation to Chinda’s defection from the PDP to the APC.

Among the questions submitted for determination is whether, upon a combined interpretation of Sections 177(c) and 68 of the Constitution, Chinda validly defected from the PDP to the APC before being screened and declared the APC governorship candidate on May 9, 2026.

Other respondents in the suit include INEC, the PDP, the APC, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the National Assembly.

Daudu, speaking with journalists outside the courtroom, explained that the PDP sought an adjournment to allow it adequate time to respond to the processes served by the plaintiff.

Also, Amatonjie described the suit as a matter of public interest, arguing that it was necessary to seek judicial clarification on the constitutional provisions governing political defections.

He said the case was intended to safeguard constitutional compliance and prevent political developments from undermining the provisions of the nation’s supreme law.