…Fixes April 22 for definate hearing
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, granted accelerated hearing in the protracted legal battle over the leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Action Democratic Congress (ADC) abridging the time for all parties and fixed April 22, 2026 for definitive hearing of both appeals
At the resumed hearing, lead counsel to the appellant, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, moved a motion urging the apex court to fast-track the matter, citing its urgency and the far-reaching implications of the dispute on the party’s leadership structure.
He informed the court that a motion on notice, supported by an affidavit of extreme urgency, had been duly filed to justify the request.
In a related appeal, Paul Erokoro, SAN, also applied for accelerated hearing in the matter, a request the respondents did not oppose to but however, prayed the court for five days to file their response.
The apex court also granted the request as prayed and directed that all necessary processes be filed within five days, ahead of the April 22 hearing date.
Earlier, in his response to the principal application, a counsel to the respondent, Emmanuel Ukala, SAN, did not oppose the motion but raised procedural concerns, noting that his team had only been served three days earlier.
He submitted that while 15 days would ordinarily be required to respond, they could reasonably comply within 10 days given the circumstances.
Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Kingsley Magbin aligned with the position, requesting 10 days to file a response.
Similarly, E.R. Gold, representing the 6th respondent, asked for a 10-day window, while Audu Anuga, SAN, counsel to the 8th and 9th respondents, did not oppose the application.
All the respondents, with the exception of Abdulrahman Mohammed, the PDP chairman backed by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Nyesom Wike, did not object to the request.
Mohammed was not in court, nor was he represented by any lawyer.
Delivering the ruling of the court, Justice Lawal Garba, who presided over a five-member panel, held that the court was persuaded by the affidavit of extreme urgency and submissions of counsel.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said, “We find it expedient to grant these requests” and ordered all the respondents to file their processes within five days, with an additional two days allowed for replies where necessary.
The apex court further directed that all filings must be completed on or before April 21, 2026 and thereafter, adjourned till April 22, 2026, for definate hearing.
In a separate but related matter involving the African Democratic Congress (ADC), counsel to the party, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, sought an abridgement of time.
The court, in line with its earlier stance, granted accelerated hearing and equally adjourned the case till April 22 for hearing of the appeal
filed by the David Mark-led faction against Nafiu Bala, a former deputy national chairman of the party.
In the appeal marked SC/CV/180/2026, the ex-Senate President is asking the court to grant an order staying the execution of the Court of Appeal’s ruling delivered on March 12.
Mark’s appeal is against the March 12 judgment of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the ex-Senate President’s appeal in relation to the ongoing leadership dispute in the party.
Mark, the appellant in the appeal, had named Hon Nafiu-Bala Gombe, ADC, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Chief Ralp Nwosu as 1st to 5th respondents respectively.
Mark, in the motion on notice filed by his lawyer, Realwan Okpanachi, prayed the court for an order of stay of execution of the appellate court’s judgment pending the hearing and determination of his appeal.
He also sought an order restraining INEC from acting on the Appeal Court’s judgment by recognising any person(s) other than him and the existing national officers of ADC, pending the hearing and determination of his appeal.
Mark, the former Senate president, further prayed the apex court for an order, restraining INEC from tampering with the national leadership structure of the party as presently constituted and represented by him, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
Besides, he sought an order staying further proceedings in suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, pending before Justice Nwite, the trial judge, at FHC, pending the hearing and determination of his appeal at the apex court.
In its judgment in the appeal marked: CA/ABJ/CV/145/2026, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam, upheld the objection raised by Gombe, through his team of lawyers led by Luka Musa Haruna (SAN), that the appeal was incompetent and that it was based on issues not reflected in the ruling of the trial court.
In the same vein, the Turaki faction has approached the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the Wike-aligned group from conducting its planned national convention, originally scheduled for March 29 and 30, 2026.
The appeal challenges the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, which upheld earlier decisions of the Federal High Court nullifying the PDP national convention held in Ibadan, Oyo State, in November 2025.
The appellants contend that both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction over what they described as the internal affairs of a political party, arguing that such matters are non-justiciable.
Earlier, the Federal High Court had, in separate judgments delivered by Justices James Omotosho and Peter Lifu, restrained the conduct of the Ibadan convention, citing non-compliance with constitutional provisions and party guidelines, as well as the exclusion of key stakeholders from the process.
Despite the subsisting orders, the Turaki – led PDP National Working Committee proceeded with the convention, which produced him as national chairman of a faction of the party.
On March 9, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decisions of the lower court, dismissing the PDP’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
Dissatisfied, the Turaki-led faction filed an appeal at the Supreme Court on five grounds, seeking to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and secure a stay of execution of the judgments.
END
Comments