Nigeria’s apex court, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, on Thursday nullified the national convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) held in Ibadan, Oyo State, on 15 and 16 November 2025, bringing to a head a protracted leadership dispute within the opposition party.
In a split decision, three of the five-member panel dismissed an appeal filed by a faction of the party led by Tanimu Turaki, finding it lacked merit and constituted an abuse of court process.
Delivering the lead majority judgment, Justice Stephen Adah held that the convention was conducted in violation of a subsisting order of the Federal High Court, earlier issued by Justice James Omotosho, which restrained the party from proceeding with the exercise.
He faulted the Turaki-led group for approaching another court of coordinate jurisdiction instead of filing an appeal against the restraining order, describing the move as a misuse of judicial processes.
“This court will not lend its machinery to any litigant who abuses the process of the court. This appeal is lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs,” the court ruled.
The apex court further declared: “The conduct of the national convention of November 15, 2025, is null and void and is hereby nulled.”
The dispute arose after former Jigawa State governor, Sule Lamido, obtained a Federal High Court injunction barring the PDP from holding the convention until he was allowed to contest for the position of national chairman.
Despite the order, the party proceeded with the convention—an action that had earlier been invalidated by both the trial court and the Court of Appeal.
In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the Turaki faction, through its counsel, Paul Erokoro (SAN), had urged the court to overturn the appellate court’s decision and uphold the convention, while also dismissing a cross-appeal by a rival faction aligned with the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike.
However, the respondents argued that the issue went beyond internal party affairs and bordered on disobedience to a valid court order.
Affirming this position, the majority held that political parties, as vehicles for public office, are bound to obey court orders, stressing that once a party becomes aware of a subsisting order, compliance is mandatory under the rule of law.
However, two justices dissented.
In their minority judgments, Justices Haruna Samani and Abubakar Umar held that the courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, maintaining that the matter fell within the internal affairs of a political party and was therefore not justiciable.
They also faulted the lower courts for raising the issue of disobedience to a court order suo motu without giving parties the opportunity to address it, as required by law, although they did not endorse the breach of court orders.
The majority judgment, read by Justice Adah, was supported by Justices Mohammed Garba and Chidiebere Iheme, effectively sealing the fate of the disputed convention.
