The Court of Appeal in Abuja has dismissed an appeal filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) regarding the leadership dispute within the party.
The appeal stemmed from a Federal High Court judgement which recognised a caretaker leadership structure within the Peoples Democratic Party as the party’s interim arrangement.
|
|
A three-member panel of the court led by Judge Uchechukwu Onyemenam delivered the ruling on Wednesday, with Judges Mohammed Mustapha and Okon Abang concurring. The certified true copy of the judgement was shared with PREMIUM TIMES on Saturday.
The court held that the dispute over the party’s national convention in Ibadan had become academic following binding decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|---|
The court anchored its decision on earlier appellate and Supreme Court pronouncements which nullified the party’s national convention held in Ibadan, Oyo State, on 15 and 16 November 2025.
“The appellant abused the process of the court to conduct the party Convention. The Party Convention conducted on 15 and 16 November 2025, is null, void and of no effect.”
The defendants in the case are the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mohammed Abdulrahman (Acting National Chairman of the PDP).
Others are Senator Samuel Nnaemeka Anyanwu (National Secretary of the PDP), Senator Mao Ohuabunwa (Chairman, Board of Trustees, PDP), Hon. Austine Nwachukwu (PDP Chairman, Imo State Chapter), Hon. Amah Abraham Nnanna (PDP Chairman, Abia State Chapter), and Turnah Alabh George (PDP Secretary, South-South zone).
The dispute arose from the PDP national convention held in Ibadan on 15 and 16 November 2025, where party stakeholders announced competing leadership outcomes and set up rival structures within the party.
The exercise triggered a wave of litigation across different courts as rival factions challenged its validity and the legality of the leadership structures that emerged from it.
Later, judge Uche Agomoh of the Federal High Court, Ibadan, in a judgement delivered on 30 January, recognised a caretaker committee led by Alhaji Mohammed Abdulrahman and Senator Samuel Anyanwu as the party’s legitimate leadership.
Dissatisfied with that decision, the PDP filed the present appeal at the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/IB/86/2026.
While the appeal remained pending, the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/1695/2025 nullified the Ibadan convention.
The Supreme Court later affirmed that position in Appeal No. SC/CV/164/2026, holding that the convention breached a subsisting order of the Federal High Court delivered on 14 November 2025 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2299/2025 and had no legal effect.
Following those decisions, Mr Abdulrahman and other respondents filed a motion on 20 May asking the Court of Appeal to strike out or dismiss the appeal.
They argued that the Supreme Court had already settled the legality of the Ibadan convention and that the appeal no longer raised any live issue.
They also argued that continuing with the appeal would amount to an abuse of court process.
The respondents further challenged the continued appearance of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Musibau Adetunbi, for the PDP, alleging conflict of interest.
But PDP opposed the application. It argued that the motion was incompetent because the applicants did not file a preliminary objection under Order 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021.
It also maintained that the appeal still raised a live issue, particularly whether the Federal High Court was right to recognise a caretaker committee as the legitimate leadership of the party.
On counsel’s representation, the PDP argued that only a client or a disciplinary body could raise allegations of conflict of interest, not opposing parties.
‘Appeal is academic’
The Court of Appeal held that it would not allow procedural technicalities to override substance.
Judge Onyemenam held that although the application came by motion on notice, it effectively challenged the competence of the appeal and could be treated as a preliminary objection.
However, he held that none of the parties before the lower court sought such a declaration.
The court therefore considered the application on its merits. It held that the respondents lacked locus to challenge the PDP’s choice of counsel. It explained that the appeal had become academic.
READ ALSO: PDP faction to present party flag to Jonathan as 2027 presidential candidate
It held that both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had already nullified the Ibadan convention, which formed the foundation of the dispute before the trial court and the present appeal.
The court held that once the foundation of a case collapses, any structure built on it cannot stand in law.
It rejected the PDP’s argument that a separate live issue existed over the caretaker committee, holding that the issue still depended on the validity of the already nullified convention.
The court held that continuing with the appeal would serve no utilitarian purpose and would amount to an abuse of court process.
It therefore upheld the motion and dismissed the appeal.
On the complaint against counsel, the court held that allegations of conflict of interest fall within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, except in clear cases affecting a party’s right of audience
