Again, court nullifies PDP’s 2025 Ibadan convention, bars INEC from recognising its outcomes

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday again nullified the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) convention held in Ibadan, Oyo State, in November 2025, and barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising its outcome, including the leadership election conducted at the event.

Judge Joyce Abdulmalik issued the orders in her judgement in the suit instituted by the faction of the party loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Nyesom Wike.

The judgement, in sync with the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Abuja delivered earlier this month, came just hours after the Wike faction concluded its version of the national convention of the party in Abuja, producing Abdulrahman Mohammed, as the national chairman, and other members of the National Working Committee (NWC).

Monday’s judgement also came while Kabiru Turaki, who emerged from the invalidated Ibadan convention as the party’s national chairman and others who were purportedly elected there as the party’s officials, are banking on the final resolution of the dispute by the Supreme Court following the defeat they suffered at the Court of Appeal.

Ms Abdulmalik ordered in her judgement on Monday that Mr Wike’s group be granted access to the party’s national secretariat in Abuja, which was sealed off after chaos erupted there over the scramble between the factions last year. The judge also directed relevant agencies to provide them adequate security to use the secretariat.

She held that the purported convention held in Ibadan between 15 and 16 November 2025, including the election of party officials and expulsion of some notable members of the party, violated section 287(3) of the Nigerian Constitution, as well as the party’s constitution and prior court orders.

“I considered the expulsion of the members of the plaintiffs as not only an affront to the subsisting judgement, but also a direct assault to a democratic and principled society” where the rule of law is in practice, the judge said.

The court held that “all proceedings, resolutions and decisions taken at the said convention, including the suspension of members of the first plaintiff, were unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void, and of no effect.”

The Mr Wike faction, through its then acting chairperson Mohammed Abdulrahman, and secretary Samuel Anyanwu, filed the suit on 21 November last year to restrain the Kabiru Turaki-led group from representing the party and to bar the police and Stste Security Service (SSS) from granting them access to the PDP secretariat in Abuja.

The defendants sued in the suit included INEC, the Nigerian police and the SSS.

The rest were PDP members and officials who participated in, or were associated with, the November 2025 convention, led by the Turaki-led faction, and other relevant bodies and agencies.

The plaintiffs sought to prevent INEC from recognising any other office address for the Turaki-led faction apart from theirs.

They also prayed the court to declare that INEC, the police, and the SSS are constitutionally bound to enforce the decisions of the Federal High Court as delivered by Judges James Omotosho and Peter Lifu.

‘Ibadan convention held in violation of court decisions’

Delivering the judgement, the court held that, in line with the Constitution and other enabling statutes, including earlier judgements, it would not shy away from its duty to do what is just in the circumstances.

The judge noted that the the main determinant of the case is Section 287(3) of the Nigerian constitution, which provides that the decisions of the Federal High Court and other courts established by the Constitution shall be enforced by all authorities and persons across the Federation.

She observed that “in spite of the judgements which have not been set aside, the 5th to 25th defendants went ahead and organised the convention.” She added that those same judgements had also been affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

She further held that a political party’s constitution is meant to be followed by its members.

The court concluded that the issues raised in the plaintiffs’ suit were meritorious and granted the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought.

Therefore, the judge declared that the defendants “are bound to comply with and give full effect to the subsisting judgments of the Federal High Court earlier referred to.”

She held: “The first to the fourth defendants are not entitled to recognise or give effect, in any manner whatsoever, to the purported National Convention held on 15 and 16 November 2025 by the 5th to 25th defendants and their associates.

“The purported convention, including the election of officers and suspension of members, is unconstitutional, null and void.”

She also held that the plaintiffs “are entitled to remain in office and continue to use the party’s national secretariat and properties” and ordered INEC not to recognise the said defendants as officers or representatives of the first plaintiff (the PDP) or to accept any change of address from them other than the one already in its records.

She also ordered the SSS and the police to provide adequate security for the plaintiffs in the use of the party’s national secretariat.

The court also restrained the 5th to the 25th defendants from entering, using, or interfering with the party’s properties, including holding meetings or events at the national secretariat.

It restrained INEC from accepting any address for the party other than the one already recognised in its records.

Preliminary issues decided

Before delving into the merit of the case in her judgement, Judge Abdulmalik refused an application by the defendants asking her to recuse herself from the case.

The motion sought the return of the case file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, John Tsoho, for reassignment.

However, the judge held that allegations of bias must be proven with credible evidence, and should not be based on mere suspicion.

She noted that claims of a “likelihood of bias” are “a state of mind, incapable of precise definition,” and must be supported by “cogent and credible evidence.” She said she found “no shred of evidence” to justify the allegation and stressed that the mere grant of ex parte orders does not amount to bias.

She dismissed complaints about the style of her rulings, stating that “judgement writing is a style exclusively reserved for the judge,” and not for parties or their lawyers to dictate.

On the request to transfer the case, she held that the power to assign cases lies with the Chief Judge and that it is “not the place of counsel to determine which judge will hear and determine their case.”

Ms Abdulmalik further stated that any dissatisfaction with her decisions is a matter for appeal, not recusal, and consequently refused the application for lacking merit.

On the motion challenging the competence of the suit, Judge Abdulmalik also declined to strike out the case.

She rejected arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs had no locus standi.

The defendants had argued that the dispute was purely an internal party affair, an abuse of court process, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to institute the suit.

The judge held that “jurisdiction is the livewire and pillar upon which any matter can be determined” and must be assessed based on the originating processes.

She found that the claims involved the interpretation and enforcement of constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as compliance with earlier court judgments, and are therefore within the court’s jurisdiction. She also ruled that the plaintiffs have sufficient legal interest in the matter.

The defendants had also questioned the reason for including the SSS in the suit, but Judge Abdulmalik ruled that it was necessary to join them given their role in providing security and ensuring compliance at the party’s national secretariat.

The judge concluded that the objections raised by the defendants lacked merit and dismissed the application in its entirety.

Backstory

Federal High Court judges in Abuja, including Messrs Omotosho and Peter Lifu, had in separate judgements last year barred the PDP from holding its national convention.

There were also counter-decisions from the Oyo State High Court.

But snubbing the decisions from Abuja, the Turaki-led faction proceeded with the convention which took place in Ibadan, Oyo State, between 15 and 16 November 2025, producing Mr Turaki as the national chairperson of the PDP, alongside other national officers.

Apart from electing the party’s National Working Committee (NWC), the convention also suspended some allies of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr Wike, over alleged anti-party activities.

READ ALSO: 2027 Elections: INEC extends deadline for parties’ membership registers, adjusts timetable

Those suspended included the National Secretary, Mr Anyanwu, and National Legal Adviser, Kamaldeen Ajibade. Also suspended were Deputy National Legal Adviser, Okechukwu Osuoha, and the National Organising Secretary, Umaru Bature.

The Wike-aligned faction also filed a suit before the Federal High Court to stop the Turaki group from parading themselves as party officials. But the Turaki faction’s appeal against the judgements of last year’s case delayed the case before Judge Abdulmalik.

However, on 9 March, the Court of Appeal in Abuja affirmed the Federal High Court’s decision invalidating the Ibadan convention.

Meanwhile, the Wike-aligned faction conducted a new convention on Sunday.

In his reaction to Monday’s court judgement, the faction’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), told journalists that the court further validated the convention held in Abuja on Sunday.

The Turaki group, which is displeased with the decision of the Court of Appeal on the dispute, has approached the Supreme Court for final resolution. The Supreme Court will have the final say on the leadership crisis.

In the build-up to the Sunday’s convention organised by Mr Wike’s group, Mr Turaki and other affiliated to the faction of the party, assured that peace would be restored to the PDP and that the party would participate in the 2027 general elections.

Adding to Mr Turaki’s legal odds, the FCT High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Thursday, just days to the Abuja convention, ordered Mr Turaki’s arrest over his failure to appear for arraignment in an alleged false information case. PREMIUM TIMES cannot confirm yet if the order of arrest was enforced. But the court fixed 22 April for his arraignment and further proceedings in the criminal case, which seems to have nothing to do with his PDP activities.