Supreme Court reserves decision in PDP’s appeals against judgment voiding Ibadan convention

• Apex court to decide David Mark’s appeal on ADC’s leadership dispute on a later date

The Supreme Court yesterday reserved judgments in the two appeals filed by the Kabiru Turaki-led group of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) seeking to set aside the judgments of the Court of Appeal, Abuja that voided the national convention held in Ibadan, Oyo State on November 15 and 16 last year.

A five-member panel, headed by Justice Mohammed Garba, announced that the date of judgment would be communicated to lawyers who represented the parties.

Justice Garba made the announcement after lawyers to the parties adopted their various briefs and prayed the court to grant their reliefs.

The apex court is also expected to decide Senator David Mark’s appeal on the African Democratic Congress (ADC)’s leadership dispute on a later date

The first appeal heard yesterday was marked: SC/CV/164/2026 filed by the PDP against the Court of Appeal’s March 9 decision, which affirmed the November 14, 2025 judgment by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

In the judgment, Justice Lifu, among others, barred the PDP from proceeding with the Ibadan national convention without accommodating the ex-governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido, who said he wanted to contest for National Chairman, but was prevented from obtaining the nomination form.

The second appeal, marked:SC/CV/166/2026 was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC) and National Executive Committee (NEC) against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja also delivered on March 9, which affirmed the earlier decision by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Justice Omotosho had, in his October 31, 2025 judgment, among others, issued an order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising the outcome of the Ibadan national convention of the PDP on the grounds that conditions precedent were not met by the party.

The apex court also heard the cross appeals filed by some respondents in both appeals.

During the hearing of the first appeal, lawyer to the PDP, Paul Erokoro (SAN), adopted the briefs he filed for the appellant and urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the Match 9 judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Jeph Njikonye (SAN), who represented the first respondent (Lamido) and A. O. Adeyemi for the second respondent (INEC), adopted their briefs are prayed the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Read Also: Alleged coup: Six arraigned, remanded in DSS' custody as court sets Monday for trial

Joseph Daudu (SAN), who represented the third to fifth respondents, also adopted his clients’ briefs and urged the court to hold that the appeal did not fall into the sphere of internal affairs of the political party as argued by the appellant.

He urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

The third to fifth respondents in the appeal are Austin Nwachukwu (Imo PDP Chairman), Amah Abraham Nnanna (Abia PDP chairman) and Turnah George (PDP Secretary, Southsouth).

At the hearing of the second appeal, appellants’ lawyer, Chris Uche (SAN), adopted the appellants’ brief and urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Uche urged the court to also strike out the originating summons filed by the respondents at the trial court, which was heard without jurisdiction.

He insisted that the issues involved were about the management of political parties on which the court lacked jurisdiction.

Uche said although the appeal is against the concurrent findings of the two lower courts, with which the Supreme Court hardly interfered, “this is an exception because both courts below erred on issue of jurisdiction.”

Daudu, who represented the first to third respondents - Nwachukwu, Nnanna and George - adopted his briefs and urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

He argued that it is not correct that the issues were about the management of political parties.

Daudu said they are matters that dovetail into the duties of INEC and the need to maintain internal democracy within a party.

The Supreme Court also reserved its judgment in the appeal filed by factional National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in relation to the leadership dispute in the party.

The same five-member panel, headed by Justice Garba, announced that the date of judgment would be communicated to lawyers who represented parties.

Justice Garba made the announcement after lawyers to parties adopted their various briefs and prayed the court to grant their reliefs.

Mark’s appeal, marked: SC/CV/180/2026 is against the March 12 judgment of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal against the September 4, 2025 ruling by Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The high court had refused to grant some injunctive reliefs contained in an ex-parte motion filed by a chieftain of the party, Nafiu Bala Gombe, who is challenging Mark’s leadership of the ADC.

During the hearing of the appeal, appellant’s lawyer, Jibril Okutepa (SAN) identified the briefs he filed, adopted same and urged the court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and allow the appeal.

Okutepa argued that the Court of Appeal acted without jurisdiction and granted orders that was not sought by either the appellant or the respondents.

The appellant’s lawyer had on April 14 when the appeal was first mentioned, argued that the case revolved around issues that fall within the confine of the internal affairs of the political party over which court lacked jurisdiction.

He argued that the case was about the leadership of the ADC and that it was wrong for the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal to assume jurisdiction.

Lawyer to Gombe, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), adopted the first respondent’s brief, urging the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Emukpoeruo faulted Okutepa’s claim that the Court of Appeal failed to determine the issue of jurisdiction but proceeded to issue orders not sought, and on which INEC acted to de-recognise the Mark-led leadership of the ADC.

He said the appellate court found that Mark had raised the issue of jurisdiction before the trial court, which was yet to be decided before he went to the Court of Appeal to raise the same issue.

Emukpoeruo added that this position informed why the Court of Appeal ordered accelerated hearing in the case before the trial court and ordered parties to maintain status quo ante bellum.