PDP Crisis: Case shifts to Appeal Court as trial judge fixes Jan. 23 for hearing

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA– Legal dispute over the leadership crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has shifted to the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, a faction of the party led by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Kabiru Turaki, on Wednesday urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to hands-off, since the appellate court is already seized of the facts of the case.

It will be recalled that the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2501/2025, is seeking to nullify the outcome of the National Convention that held in Ibadan, Oyo state, November 15 and 16.

The action was initiated by Mohammed Abdulrahman and Senator Samuel Anyanwu, who are the Acting National Chairman and National Secretary, respectively, of the bloc loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike.

Cited as defendants in the matter included all those that were elected at the Ibadan convention, as well as the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC; Inspector General of Police; the Commissioner of Police, FCT Command; and the State Security Service, SSS.

The litigants, besides their prayer for an order of injunction to restrain the 5th to 25th defendants (who emerged through the Ibadan convention) “from parading themselves, representing themselves or allowing themselves to be represented as officers or representatives of the 1st plaintiff (PDP) in any capacity whatsoever,” also sought an order to bar the INEC from recognizing or relating as representatives of the party.

They further prayed the court to restrain the defendants from “invading” the national headquarters of the PDP, and to also bar INEC from recognizing any other address as head office of the party except the Wadata Plaza at Wuse Zone 5, Abuja.

As well as to issue “an order of mandatory injunction directing the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants to provide adequate security and security cover for the plaintiffs (inclusive of the successors of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs) for the conduct of the business and affairs of the 1st plaintiff at Plot 1970, Wadata Plaza, Michael Okpara Way, Wuse Zone 5, Abuja and/or Legacy House, Plot 2774, Shehu Shagari Way, Maitama, Abuja and the environs.”

When the matter was called up on Wednesday, counsel to the Turaki-led faction, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, informed the trial judge that the appeal had been duly entered.

He further drew the attention of the court to a motion asking it to stay further proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.

However, counsel to the plaintiffs, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, who stressed that he was served with a copy of the process late on Tuesday, urged the court to reject the motion for stay of execution and proceed with hearing of the substantive suit.

Arguing that the filing of an appeal does not automatically halt a proceeding before a trial court, Ikpeazu, SAN, added that what was before the appellate court was an interlocutory matter.

Even though he expressed his readiness to counter the defendant’s motion with points of law, however, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ordered him to file a formal response to the application.

The court deferred hearing of the motion until January 23.

The defendants had earlier asked Justice Abdulmalik to recuse herself from the case on the ground of bias.

According to them, “there exists a reasonable and well founded apprehension of likelihood of bias against the 5th to 25th Defendants/Applicants in the manner this suit has been handled by His Lordship, Hon. Justice Abduimalik.”

They noted that though the judge earlier refused an ex parte motion that was brought before the court by the faction aligned with the FCT Minister, she still proceeded to bar their own group from taking any step or decisions on behalf of the party.

“The right to fair hearing is constitutionally guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), including the right to an impartial tribunal.

“The 5th to 25th defendants/applicants had formally petitioned the Honourable Chief Judge of the Federal High Court requesting that no case concerning the internal affairs or disputes of the PDP be assigned to His Lordship and two other Judges of the Abuja Judicial Division of the Court (out of twelve Judges of the Court) due to past antecedents and perceived partisanship in similar matters,

“Despite the above letter of objection, the matter was assigned to His Lordship, whereupon the Party wrote again to the Chief Judge to ask for the transfer of the matter from the said Court.

“Notwithstanding the said letters, His Lordship proceeded to preside over this suit, thereby raising a legitimate apprehension that the 5th to 25th defendants/applicants may not receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased consideration of their case.

“The suit which was filed only on 21st November 2025 got its way into His Lordship’s Court and on 25th November 2025, His Lordship made an ex parte against the defendants in a format and template that was curious and in alliance with the format and template utilised by Hon. Justice Omotosho of the same Court against the defendants, while giving the impression on paper that the prayers in the motion were being refused, yet granting even more far reaching orders against the defendants in fact, which similarity and pattern exceed coincidence.

“The subject-matter of both suits is the National Convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which is a domestic dispute and internal matter of the Party.

“The orders made ex parte by His Lordship when there was no real urgency touched directly on and determined the main substance of the suit at such a preliminary and interim stage.

“The said orders against the defendants were made several days after the receipt of the letter of protest by the 5th to 25th Defendants, and a second letter protesting the assignment of the matter to His Lordship.

“Judicial proceedings must not only be fair but must manifestly appear to be fair.

“The test for likelihood of bias is whether a reasonable person, properly informed of all the circumstances, would apprehend that he may not receive justice from the Court.

“The continued involvement of His Lordship in this suit, notwithstanding a prior written objection to the Court’s administrative authority, has further deenened the apprehension of partiality.

“The circumstances objectively disclose that justice in this matter is at risk of being compromised, and the integrity of the judicial proceedings will be better preserved by directing a reassignment,” they added.

The post PDP Crisis: Case shifts to Appeal Court as trial judge fixes Jan. 23 for hearing appeared first on Vanguard News.