PDP convention crisis splits Supreme Court justices, apex court voids Ibadan congress

…Supreme Court orders retrial in ADC leadership dispute, faults status quo order

The Supreme Court, in a 3–2 split decision on Thursday, set aside the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) national convention held on 15 and 16 November 2025 in Ibadan, Oyo State, in a ruling on the party’s leadership dispute.

Delivering the majority judgment, Justice Stephen Adah upheld the Court of Appeal in Abuja which nullified the convention that produced Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, SAN, as national chairman. The court held that the exercise breached subsisting court orders and amounted to abuse of judicial process.

The dispute centred on an order of the Federal High Court in Abuja, delivered by Justice Peter Lifu, which restrained the PDP from proceeding with the convention until a founding member, Alhaji Sule Lamido, was allowed to obtain nomination forms and participate in the chairmanship contest.

Lamido had alleged denial of access to nomination forms. The trial court accepted the claim and halted preparations for the convention.

Despite the order, the party went ahead with the exercise. The Supreme Court held that this amounted to disregard for judicial authority.

Justice Adah held that parties are bound by valid court orders and that any breach attracts consequences. He declared the convention “null, void and of no effect” and dismissed the appeal filed by the Turaki-led faction.

The court also dismissed all cross-appeals and upheld the Court of Appeal’s reliance on an earlier judgment by Justice James Omotosho, which restrained the party from holding the convention over alleged failure to conduct valid state congresses in line with constitutional provisions, INEC guidelines, and party rules.

That judgment, delivered on 31 October 2025 in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/2025, was instituted by three party members — Austin Nwachukwu, Amah Abraham Nnanna, and Turnah Alabh George — who challenged the legality of the internal processes leading to the convention.

In dissenting opinions, Justices Haruna Tsamani and Sadiq Abubakar Umar held that the appeal had merit and should have succeeded.

They argued that issues relating to Lamido’s complaint were internal party matters and not justiciable. They also held that the trial court raised the issue of disobedience to court order suo motu without hearing the parties.

Justice Umar further held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction, noting that Lamido did not exhaust internal party dispute resolution mechanisms. Both justices set aside the decisions of the lower courts.

In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court ordered that the leadership dispute within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) be returned to the Federal High Court for determination on its merit.

A five-member panel, in a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Garba, faulted the Court of Appeal’s order directing parties to maintain status quo ante bellum, describing it as unnecessary and unwarranted.

The court held that the substantive issues on the party’s leadership crisis should be determined at trial level rather than through interim preservation orders.

The dispute arose from a suit filed by Nafiu Bala Gombe challenging the leadership of the party under former Senate President David Mark. The Court of Appeal had dismissed Mark’s appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Abuja and ordered that parties maintain status quo pending determination.

Following the order, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) withdrew recognition of the Mark-led leadership pending judicial clarification.

Dissatisfied, Mark approached the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the ruling and restrain INEC from recognising any leadership other than his faction.

The Supreme Court declined to uphold the appellate court’s interim order and returned the matter to the Federal High Court for full hearing and determination.