PDP Crisis: S’Court Must Go Beyond Its Not Justiciable Stance

If the Supreme Court must safe Nigeria’s  democracy and also redeem whatever is left from its own dented image, the court must go beyond its usual stand of pronouncing internal matters of political parties as not justiciable, in the appeal by the Tanimu Turaki-led faction of the People’s Democratic Party, pending before it, writes Alex Enumah.

Since Nigeria gained independence in 1960, the country has never enjoyed lasting democratic rule like this Fourth Republic, which started in 1999. This pride of 27 years of “uninterrupted” democracy however seems to be under threat by the activities of some selfish politicians and in connivance with the judiciary.

While internal wranglings of political parties or politicians is not strange to Nigeria’s polity, what is however new and troubling is the increasing involvement of the judiciary, especially the courts, despite the provisions of the laws that prohibits judges from entertaining cases that centers on the internal affairs of political parties.

When politicians tell you to “go to court”, they say so, not because they are convinced that they have a strong case but, because they have the lawyer that does not necessarily know the laws, but know the judges that would always create grounds to assume jurisdiction in matters of internal affairs of political parties and subsequently rule in their favour.

A former judge of the Federal High Court now at the Court of Appeal, would confidently tell lawyers and litigants that he is “not afraid to take decisions one way or the other” because the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, the final court in the land are there to either affirm or set aside his decisions.

While this could be seen as a display of courage or independence, the danger here is where such a decision is not affirm or set aside by the apex court, in the name of “not justiciable”. From the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) to the Labour Party (LP) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), we have instances where the trial court and appellate court assumed jurisdiction and took decision in favour of their alleged paymasters only for the apex court to rule that the appeal before them is not justiciable. Assuming the judgment of the two lower court which the electoral umpire or other institutions relied upon to act is wrong, because the Supreme Court refused to make any pronouncement beyond “the case is not justiciable”, then that wrong or illegal order remains.

In the appeal marked: SC/CV/166/26, the Turaki-led faction is asking the apex court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgments of the trial court against the party’s elected officers. Recall that the appellate court had on March 9, 2026 upheld the judgments of the Federal High Court against the conduct of the November 15 and 16, 2025, National Convention of the People’s Democratic Party, held in Ibadan, Oyo State, that produced Turaki and the other executives. The appellate court in its unanimous judgment held that Ibadan convention was conducted against an order of the court. But, the appellants have continued to argue that the convention was an internal matters of the PDP, which no court has jurisdiction.

While Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court had in his judgment delivered last year ordered INEC not to participate in the convention, Justice Peter Lifu, on the other hand, held that the convention should not take place until an aspirant, former Jigawa State Governor, Sule Lamido was allowed to purchase form and screened by the party.

The PDP however, went ahead to conduct the convention relying on the orders of a High Court of Oyo State, which gave the go-ahead for the conduct of the November, 2025 convention.

However, delivering judgments in nine appeals filed by both the Turaki-led faction and the faction loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, the appellate court voided the convention and upheld the two judgments against the conduct of the convention. Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam, who delivered the unanimous judgment of the appellate court, had observed that the PDP instead of appealing against the federal high court decision, opted for a court of coordinate jurisdiction where it got a favourable judgment that was obeyed.

Specifically, the court held that denying Lamido the opportunity to exercise his right by purchasing nomination form for the position of national chairman cannot be an internal affairs of the PDP, adding that internal affairs was not absolute.

“Where a party deliberately breached 1999 Constitution, Electoral Act 2022 and it’s own Constitution and Guidelines has gone beyond any internal affairs that courts cannot adjudicate upon. The court must by law, intervene and resolve the matter in line with the position of the law”, the appellate court held.

Justice Onyemenam took swipe at the Turaki faction for disobeying a lawful order and resorting to self help by running around a court of coordinate jurisdiction to get favourable judgment.

The court held that the action was a direct affront to the authority of court which must not be condoned for whatever reason, adding that resorting to selective judgment to obey cannot be helpful to the party.

“No court will fold its hand while its authorities are being rubbished. The action of the appellant is condemnable as it is contemptuous”, the court held.

The appellate court also upheld the judgment of Justice Omotosho, which had on October 31, 2025 restrained INEC from recognizing the outcome of the Ibadan convention, stressing that the PDP violated its own laws in the process leading to the November 15 and 16 convention.

Recall that Omotosho while delivering judgment in the suit filed by three aggrieved members of the PDP had restrained INEC from participating, monitoring or recognizing the outcome of the convention, on the grounds that congresses were not conducted in many of the states, to warrant the conduct of the national convention.

But, the PDP faulting the decisions of the appellate court is arguing that, “the court has no business meddling into a purely political matter”, adding that the internal affairs of political parties are to be left to the parties to resolve by themselves.

While the appellants in the main appeal filed on March 17, is praying the apex court to set aside the judgment of the appellate court which sacked them as leaders of the PDP, they also on March 27, filed a Motion on Notice, seeking among others the stay of the execution of the appellate court judgment as well as restraining orders stopping the other faction of the PDP from conducting their own convention fixed for March 29 and 30.

Their team of lawyers led by Chief Chris Uche (SAN) predicated their demands on the grounds that the judgments of the two lower courts are all subject of appeal before the Supreme Court, and that the Record of Appeal has been transmitted and the appeal entered at the Supreme Court as SC/CV/166/2026.

While submitting that the judgments of the two lower courts were delivered without jurisdiction, the appellants claimed that, “the respondents intend, unless restrained, to give effect to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court by organizing a fresh National convention, at Abuja on March 29 and 30, 2026, and taking further steps to present “a fiat accompli’ to the appellants and their members and officials while the merits of the appeal are yet to be decided.

“The Supreme Court’s decision, in the instant appeal, in the event that it succeeds, will be rendered nugatory unless this application is granted”.

Unfortunately, whole the application of the Turaki-led faction is still pending at the apex court, the other faction said to be loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), went ahead to conduct its convention on March 29 and 30, that produced the Abdulrahman Mohammed-led leadership of the PDP.

While the Court of Appeal had voided the outcome of the Ibadan convention on grounds that it was held against the order of the trail court which had restrained it from going ahead until certain conditions were met, the question is; what will the apex court say in respect of the Abuja convention which produced the Mohammed-led leadership of the PDP, especially when the matter was still pending before the final court. Would the decision of the apex court be rendered nugatory, because the March 29 and 30 convention has been conducted and its new leadership recognize by the electoral umpire.

Also, would the Supreme Court agree with the position of the two lower courts that the case before them was not an internal affairs of political parties and affirm their decisions or disagree and reverse all their judgments and orders.

The apex court in the instant appeal cannot sit on the fence of, “internal matters of political parties are not justiciable”. It must this time around take a position which must be in line with the law and in the interest of Nigeria’s democracy and the people.

Only few days ago, President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN) raised concerns over the “disturbing involvement by lawyers and courts in the internal affairs of political parties despite the clear provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026”. According to him, Section 83 of the Act denies courts the jurisdiction to entertain any matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party, and also precluded them from granting any interim or interlocutory injunction even where any action has been brought in violation of the Act.

“The section further provides that, Where such an action is brought in negation of this provision, no interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained by the Court, but the Court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment and shall give accelerated hearing to the matter.

“What we now see are situations where actions are not only instituted in Courts by lawyers in clear violation of the Act, but Courts purportedly grant interim and/or interlocutory injunctions in clear contempt of statutory provisions of the law.

“This does not augur well for our democracy. Democracy will not thrive in a situation where lawyers and courts take actions and decisions that not only negate our laws but also do violence to them. This emerging trend of subverting the clear letters of the Electoral Act and dragging courts into the internal affairs of political parties through disingenuous litigation, forum shopping, and malafide applications designed to secure undemocratic political advantage, bodes no good for our democracy.

“Such practices, if not immediately curbed, would directly contradict the clear intendment of the Electoral Act and risk transforming the judicial processes into avenues for political score-settling or electoral manipulation”, Osigwe had said.

While assuring that the NBA will bring to book lawyers who deliberately file actions aimed at procuring judicial interference in intra-party affairs, the NBA president called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to make regulations that will sanction any judge “who knowingly assumes jurisdiction in matters clearly barred by law, grants orders in respect of intra-party disputes in violation of statutory provisions, or lends the authority of the court to partisan political maneuvering”.

He disclosed that the NBA will not shy away from drawing the NJC’s attention to the actions of any judicial officer found to have acted in a manner inconsistent with the judicial oath, constitutional responsibilities, and the preservation of public confidence in the courts.

He warned that Nigeria’s democracy must not be weakened by legal maneuvering, institutional capture, or the misuse of judicial authority, adding that the courts must remain arbiters of justice, not instruments of political advantage.

Also speaking in another forum, Osigwe urged courts to avoid complex phrases in their rulings and instead issue clear, unambiguous orders to prevent confusion and misinterpretation.

“I think, considering the confusion that is arising in our body polity in recent times, our courts should not make orders using such Latin maxims like status quo ante bellum or pendente lite.

 “The court should make clear orders as to what it means so that there is no ambiguity. It (status quo ante bellum) creates confusion. We have rendered it almost meaningless.

“It has been stripped of any clear meaning, so our courts should avoid using such phrases and instead specify what orders they are making so that nobody will be left in doubt, and no administrative body will have to interpret it and try to give its own decision on it,” he stated.

According to him, vague court orders often led to multiple interpretations, with different parties claiming victory. “I see situations where people go away rejoicing that the order was in their favour, thereby giving room for mischief or for anybody to interpret it the way they want”, he said, “Where a court has chosen to make an order, it should state clearly what it has set out to do and not hide behind any Latin maxims”.

Therefore, the Supreme Court must not only do justice but, ensure justice is seen to have been done in the PDP appeal as well as other political appeals that would come to it, especially from the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

It is in situation like this, that the judiciary not only proves its stabilizing role in the political cum economic environment but, being “the last hope of the common man”, indeed.

The political environment is not only fully charged but is approaching a burning phase, with the ADC vowing to sustain its protest against the INEC leadership, which is being accused of partisanship. Recall that the electoral umpire citing a ruling of the Court of Appeal, dropped the Senator David Mark-led leadership of the ADC, which it has hitherto recognized and uploaded in its website.

A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal had in a ruling last month ordered parties to maintain status quo ante bellum in a suit filed by Hon Nafiu Bala Gombe, challenging the Mark-led leadership before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

The appellate court also ordered for accelerated hearing of the suit at the trial court. But, before the trial court could resume hearing in the matter INEC decided to de-recognize the David Mark-led leadership, which it had earlier recognize and exchanged correspondence in respect of the ADC’s national convention slated for April 14, in Abuja.

INEC’s move is seen as an attempt to foreclose the ADC which appears to be a formidable opposition in the 2027 general elections. Already, the possibility of the PDP, LP and All Nigeria People’s Party (ANPP), which came 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively, in the 2023 general elections, participating in the forthcoming 2027 general elections, is like the proverbial passing of the camel through the eye of the needle.