Abuja Court Pauses PDP Convention Over Lamido's Exclusion

PDP Convention Paused as Abuja Judge Orders Inclusion of Sule Lamido

Abuja Federal High Court halts PDP national convention, orders nomination forms for Sule Lamido and restrains INEC from recognising any exclusionary outcome.

Atlantic Post

November 14, 2025

4–6 minutes

Federal High Court, Ibadan convention, INEC, Judicialisation, Justice Peter Lifu, Nigerian Politics, Oyo State, Party Dispute, PDP, Sule Lamido

The Peoples Democratic Party has been plunged into a fresh legal and political crisis. Rival court orders are colliding mere days before its scheduled national convention in Ibadan.

On Friday a Federal High Court in Abuja put the Ibadan gathering on hold. The court ruled that former Jigawa State governor Sule Lamido was unjustly denied the opportunity to obtain a nomination form. He wanted to contest the party’s national chairmanship.

The ruling was delivered by Justice Peter Lifu. It also restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission. They are barred from supervising, monitoring, or recognising any convention that excludes Mr Lamido.

The immediate effect was predictable. The Abuja injunction requires the PDP to make nomination forms available to Mr Lamido. It also requires allowing him time to campaign and mobilise supporters before any election at the convention proceeds.

Justice Lifu’s order framed the issue as one of internal party democracy. It held that political parties have a duty to adopt deliberate measures. These measures enable members to pursue political office. The judge’s decision is clear in its practical consequence. No credible final convention result can be produced while the suit remains live.

An Oyo State High Court in Ibadan is presided over by Justice Ladiran Akintola. At the same time, the court has extended an interim order. This order had earlier constrained interference with the planned national convention.

That ruling, itself a product of ex parte litigation, was kept in force pending further hearing of the substantive applications. The result is a jurisdictional and operational tangle. Two courts and two orders are involved. One party and an electoral umpire are caught in between.

Inside the fracas
The legal choreography has been complicated by a series of filings, counter filings and procedural objections. The counsel argued that the Ibadan convention challengers claim the party did not follow its own constitution. They also asserted it did not adhere to the timetable and guidelines for congresses and primaries.

Defence lawyers countered with procedural quibbles. In one instance, an application for joinder was rejected. The reason was that the affidavit was unsigned. The court said this lapse could be cured by refiling. The contested technicalities underline the high stakes.

The PDP leadership has sought to project calm. In a statement, the party’s publicity team dismissed reports of any postponement. They accused the ruling All Progressives Congress of seeking to derail the convention with misinformation and legal distractions.

Yet optimism inside party headquarters is brittle. If executed, the Abuja order places a legal obligation on the party. This obligation is hard to reconcile with the logistics and timetable for a national convention set to open on 15 November.

What is at stake is more than procedural fairness. The national chairmanship race is, in this context, a proxy for deeper factional battles within the PDP.

Allowing a prominent figure like Sule Lamido to join is not merely an act of legal compliance. It alters calculations for delegates, power brokers, and sponsors whose commitments were predicated on a narrower field of contestants. The court’s insistence on inclusion thus has a material effect on the balance of influence going into any vote.

Judicialisation of party politics
This episode fits a broader pattern. In recent years Nigerian politics has seen an increased judicialisation of internal party disputes. Courts are routinely asked to adjudicate pre-election matters that once would have been resolved inside party structures.

Academic and legal analysis points to a trend. Litigants use the courts to enforce statutory requirements and party constitutions. They also handle what they characterise as breaches of the Electoral Act.

That shift has profound consequences for party autonomy. It also reflects a practical desperation. Aspirants feel shut out of internal mechanisms.

The judiciary’s readiness to intervene is not uniform. Judges often emphasise that internal party matters are for the party to resolve. Yet when there is alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act, courts have been willing to make pre-emptive orders. Courts have also acted preemptively when INEC’s statutory role to monitor primaries is invoked.

In this case Justice Lifu expressly restrained INEC from recognising any convention that excludes a named member. That is a broad injunction and one with immediate practical force.

Practical consequences and the road ahead
Practically speaking, the PDP has limited options. It can seek an expedited hearing at the Federal High Court in Abuja. Alternatively, it can ask for a stay of the order. Another option is to continue in defiance and invite legal and political fallout.

INEC is in an awkward position. The commission must decide whether to heed the Abuja order. Alternatively, they could accept the Oyo court direction, which cleared the convention to continue earlier. Either path risks further litigation.

For a party that has already suffered from public perception of internal division, the timing could not be worse. The convention was intended to reset leadership and show a unified front to a competitive political calendar. Instead the PDP finds itself litigating the terms under which that reset should happen. If history is a guide, prolonged legal battles rarely end well for party cohesion.

What is unfolding in the courts is at once legal and political. The Federal High Court’s injunction insists on Mr Lamido’s inclusion. This decision is rooted in statutory language about participation. It is also based on constitutional language about fairness. But the order also intervenes in the balance of power inside the PDP at a decisive moment.

For delegates, governors, INEC and the party faithful the question is stark. Will the PDP resolve its internal dispute using the party’s own mechanisms? Or will the courts decide the structure of the contest?

The coming days will tell if legal remedies restore fairness. Or they may merely deepen a rupture at the heart of one of Nigeria’s principal parties.