Supreme Court nullifies PDP Ibadan convention

The Supreme Court has nullified the national convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) held in Ibadan, Oyo State, on November 15 and 16, 2025.

In a split judgment delivered on Thursday, three of the five justices ruled that the appeal filed by the Tanimu Turaki-led faction of the party lacked merit.

Delivering the majority decision, Justice Stephen Adah held that the appellants violated a subsisting order of the Federal High Court, which had restrained them from proceeding with the convention.

The appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, arose from an earlier ruling by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja. On November 11, Lifu issued an interim order stopping the convention pending the determination of a suit filed by Sule Lamido, former governor of Jigawa State. He later issued a final order on November 14, restraining the party from holding the convention.

In his ruling, Lifu found that Lamido had been unjustly denied the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for the position of national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal guidelines. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision on March 9.

Dissatisfied, the PDP faction approached the Supreme Court.

In affirming the lower courts’ decisions, Justice Adah said the appellants acted in “flagrant disregard” of a valid court order. He noted that instead of complying or appealing the order, the party filed a similar case before another court of equal jurisdiction, thereby abusing court process.

“Orders of court must be obeyed and remain binding until set aside, whether considered regular or otherwise,” the court held.

The apex court also observed that the appellants failed to challenge the Court of Appeal’s findings on their disobedience of the subsisting order.

Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal.

However, in a dissenting opinion, Justice Simon Tsammani argued that the issue of disobedience to a court order was not raised by any of the parties but introduced by the court. He further held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction over internal party matters and therefore supported the appeal.

Justice Sadiq Umar aligned with the dissenting judgment.