Legal Dispute Over PDP National Convention Heats Up
The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the hearing of a legal challenge aimed at halting the planned national convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) until Thursday, October 16, 2025. The court’s decision came after a heated dispute between two senior advocates of Nigeria, Chris Uche and Kamaldeen Ajibade, both claiming to represent the PDP in the case.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/2025, was filed by three key figures within the PDP: Austin Nwachukwu, the Imo State Chairman; Amah Nnanna, the Abia State Chairman; and Turnah George, the South-South Zonal Secretary. These plaintiffs are seeking an order to prevent the defendants from proceeding with the planned national convention scheduled for November 15 and 16, 2025, in Ibadan, Oyo State. They also want the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to be barred from monitoring the event until the court resolves their substantive suit.
In addition to halting the convention, the plaintiffs are requesting that all parties involved refrain from conducting or participating in any meetings scheduled for October 15, 2025, including those of the National Executive Committee, National Caucus, or National Working Committee. They further ask the court to maintain the status quo ante bellum, ensuring no actions are taken that could prejudice their application for an interlocutory injunction.
Allegations of Unconstitutional Actions
The plaintiffs argue that they are registered members and current officeholders of the PDP who intend to contest positions during the forthcoming national convention. However, they claim they have been sidelined due to what they describe as “illegal and unconstitutional actions” by the defendants. According to them, the planned convention violates the PDP Constitution, the Electoral Act 2022, and the Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties 2022, as it fails to comply with required internal democratic procedures.
Despite the ongoing legal battle, the defendants have continued preparations for the convention, which the plaintiffs say threatens their legal and political interests.
Dispute Over Legal Representation
Tuesday’s proceedings were overshadowed by a conflict over who is authorized to represent the PDP. Uche claimed he was instructed by the party’s National Chairman, Umar Damagum, to appear on behalf of the PDP, citing a letter of instruction. Ajibade, however, contested this, arguing that as the party’s National Legal Adviser, he alone is constitutionally empowered to brief external counsel.
Ajibade cited judicial authorities to support his position, while Uche insisted that the National Chairman had directly instructed him. The court ordered both lawyers and their clients to step out of the courtroom for 10 minutes to seek an amicable resolution. When proceedings resumed, Uche stated that no agreement was reached and urged the court to proceed with the hearing.
Ajibade denied asking for more time and maintained that the party’s constitution grants him the authority to handle its legal matters. He also alleged that he was threatened by some individuals during the recess outside the courtroom.
Joinder Applications and Court Ruling
Uche requested a short adjournment to allow the National Chairman to reconcile with the National Legal Adviser. He also noted that several parties had applied to be joined in the case. The plaintiffs’ counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), urged the court to proceed with the hearing if the representation issue was not resolved, opposing the joinder applications.
Justice Omotosho warned against further delays, stating that the court would give the PDP an opportunity to resolve its internal differences before proceeding. He emphasized that judicial processes should not be made nugatory by political maneuvering.
The court heard two separate motions for joinder—one filed by Paul Erokoro (SAN) on behalf of PDP National Chairman Damagum, and another by Audu Anuga (SAN) for Chief Ali Odefa and Emmanuel Ogidi. Both applicants argued that the individuals named were necessary parties whose interests would be directly affected by the outcome of the suit.
Daudu opposed both motions, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims did not make the chairman or other officers necessary parties, and that their inclusion would amount to an abuse of court process.
After hearing arguments, Justice Omotosho granted both applications and ordered that Damagum, Odefa, and Ogidi be joined as the 7th, 8th, and 9th defendants respectively. He then adjourned the case to October 16 for the hearing of the substantive suit and all pending applications, directing all parties to respond to all filings within 24 hours.
Final Ruling and Next Steps
Justice Omotosho concluded the session by noting that the court would await the resolution of the PDP’s internal dispute over legal representation. He stated:
“I have listened to the parties. Considering the circumstances, I hereby join Damagum, Odefa, and Ogidi as 7th, 8th, and 9th defendants respectively. This matter is adjourned to October 16 for hearing of the substantive suit and all applications.”
