PDP Convention Frozen As Court Orders Status Quo

Federal High Court halts PDP national convention over alleged delegate irregularities as judge promises judgment before the end of October.

Atlantic Post

October 17, 2025

3–5 minutes

Electoral Act 2022, INEC, internal democracy, Justice James Omotosho, National Convention 2025, Nigerian Politics, party crisis, PDP

The Federal High Court in Abuja has again put the Peoples Democratic Party’s plan for a national convention on hold, in a ruling that has thrust the party into fresh crisis less than a month before delegates were due to gather in Ibadan.

Justice James Omotosho reaffirmed an earlier injunction. It directs all parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of a substantive suit. He warned that any attempt to flout the court’s orders would attract consequential sanctions.

The dispute centres on an originating summons filed by three aggrieved PDP members. These members are Austin Nwachukwu, Amah Abraham Nnanna, and Turnah George. They argue that the party neglected to hold the required congresses. These congresses were necessary to elect delegates for the planned November 15 and 16 convention.

The plaintiffs, in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/2025, have joined INEC, the PDP, and multiple national officers as defendants. They want the convention’s notice or outcome nullified. This applies unless the party complies strictly with the 1999 Constitution. The party must also adhere to the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties.

In open court on Thursday a tense exchange between Senior Advocates exposed the fault lines inside the party. Chief Chris Uche (SAN) for the PDP told Justice Omotosho that the party was being hamstrung by the subsisting order. He asked for an expedited hearing.

The judge insisted the earlier order remained valid. He set a definite hearing for Monday, October 20. He promised a judgment before the end of October. He directed all parties to exchange processes by October 17 to make sure the matter is ripe for hearing.

The legal arguments are technical but their political implications are immediate and stark. The plaintiffs claim that failures in the chain of internal congresses exist. This means there are no lawful delegates to constitute a legitimate national convention.

If the court upholds that position, it will strip any convention outcomes of legal force. This action would place INEC in the invidious position of either recognising a contested process or refusing to do so.

The plaintiffs have asked the court for specific actions. They want the court to restrain INEC from recognising any notice of the convention. They also want the court to stop INEC from giving effect to any outcome of the convention. This must be done only if it complies fully with governing law and INEC’s 2022 rules.

This is not the first time the PDP has been riven by contestation over internal democracy and delegate selection. The party’s 2022 national processes were widely criticised for alleged manipulation and for lapses that left factions embittered.

Those earlier disputes inform the present litigation. They have enhanced the argument that courts must police intra-party democracy. This need arises when internal processes deviate from statutory requirements.

The present suit sits at the intersection of party politics and electoral law. It serves as an institutional test of INEC’s role as gatekeeper of lawful party processes.

For the PDP leadership the immediate challenge is managerial and reputational. Lawyers in court argued over who properly represents the party in the litigation. Chief Chris Uche claimed authority.

The party’s National Legal Adviser, Kamaldeen Ajibade (SAN), also asserted his right to represent the party. Justice Omotosho directed them to file formal papers so the court can determine the party’s proper legal representative.

The uncertainty over representation adds another layer of complication to an already combustible situation.

Politically the stakes are high. A properly constituted convention would elect national officers whose authority could shape the party’s posture ahead of following electoral cycles.

Conversely, a legal nullification of the convention process risks deepening factionalism. It also further erodes public confidence in the party’s ability to govern itself.

INEC’s rules and the Electoral Act impose clear obligations on parties. These obligations need conducting internal elections transparently and verifiably.

If those obligations are breached, the consequences may extend beyond this single convention. They may raise questions over the party’s compliance with registration requirements.

As the hearing date approaches, the PDP has a limited time to resolve legal representation. It must also gather evidence showing its delegate choice complied with law. Additionally, it needs to persuade the court that the convention may continue.

For opponents within the party the court offers a lever to force internal reform. For INEC the case presents a constitutional conundrum about when and how it should recognise internal party outcomes.

The judiciary now occupies the centre of a political drama. The outcome will reshape the PDP’s prospects. It offers a vivid test of whether Nigeria’s party rules can withstand internal pressure.