In a split judgement of two to three Justices of the Supreme Court, the apex court has nullified the national convention of the Kabiru Tanimu Turaki led faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) held between 15 and 16 November, 2025 in Ibadan, the Oyo state capital.
In the majority judgement prepared and delivered by Justice Steven Adah, the apex court upheld the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Abuja which nullified the PDP convention which produced Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, SAN at its chairman over violation of an order of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.
Justice Peter Lifu had, in a judgement stopped the party from holding the national convention last year until a foundation member of the Party, Alhaji Sule Lamido is giving the opportunity to contest the office of the national chairman of the party.
Lamido had accused the party of denying him the opportunity to purchase the form to contest the position, an argument which the trail court upheld and stopped the convention until the party did the needful.
Instead of the party to appeal the order of the trial court, it went ahead with the convention, an action, the Supreme Court said, amounts to disobedience of an order of the court and an abuse of court process.
Justice Adah, in the majority judgement held that, any litigant who engages in abuse of court process, does so at his own peril adding that, the appellant (Turaki led PDP) abused court process in the conduct of the convention.
He held that, the convention is null and void and is accordingly set aside.
“The appeal is lacking in merit and is accordingly dismissed”, Justice Adah held.
However, both Justices Haruna Tsamani and Sadiq Abubakar Umar, in their dissenting judgement, held that the appeal is meritorious and should be allowed.
They both held that the issues raised by Lamido before the trial court are internal affairs of political parties and therefore, non justiciable.
They said non of the parties raised the issue of disobedience to court order but that, the court raised the issue suo-moto without calling parties to address them.
“It is on these reasons that I disagree with the majority judgement. Am of the view that, the appeal has merits and should be allowed and I set aside the judgement of the Court of Appeal”, Justice Adah held.
Justice Sadiq Umar, in his dissenting view held that, Lamido failed to explore the internal dispute resolution mechanism and that the issues raised at the trial court do not confer jurisdiction on the Federal High Court.
He held that the appeal is meritorious and should be allowed and set aside the judgements of the lower courts.
…More to come
Comments