Former Governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido, has expressed deep regret over having to drag the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) — his political family for over two decades — to court following his exclusion from purchasing the nomination form for the position of National Chairman ahead of the party’s 2025 National Convention.
Lamido’s reaction came shortly after the Federal High Court in Abuja fixed Thursday, November 13, for judgment in the suit he filed against the PDP. The case challenges what he describes as his “unlawful exclusion” from contesting for the top party position.
Order from the Oyo State High Court (Ibadan)
• On 3 November 2025, the Oyo State High Court, sitting in Ibadan and presided over by Justice A. L. Akintola, in Suit No. I/1336/2025 (filed by Folahan Malamo Adelabi, an aspirant for the office of Deputy National Organising Secretary of the PDP), granted an ex-parte order that:
• Cleared the PDP to proceed with its national convention scheduled for 15–16 November 2025 in Ibadan.
• Ordered the PDP (and its agents/servants/officers) not to truncate, frustrate, or interfere with the convention’s approved “Guidelines, Timetable and Schedule of Activities”.
• Directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to monitor/observe the convention, to ensure compliance with electoral laws.
• Adjourned the hearing of the motion on notice to 10 November 2025.
Implications:
This order effectively gave judicial backing for the convention to proceed in Ibadan, subject to the timetable and oversight conditions. It contrasts with earlier federal court orders that sought to halt things. The PDP leadership could thus claim a state-court mandate to move ahead. But it also established conditions (monitoring by INEC, adherence to timetable) that limit arbitrary deviation.
These federal court orders pose a direct legal obstacle for the PDP’s convention. Even though the Ibadan/State Court gave clearance, the federal court’s orders create conflicting mandates and raise serious questions of jurisdiction, enforceability, and which court’s order prevails. The fact that INEC is specifically restrained from recognising outcomes means any convention held in defiance of that order risks being functionally invalid.
• You have two courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction issuing contrasting orders:
• The Oyo State High Court (Ibadan) supports the convention under conditions.
• The Federal High Court (Abuja) halts the convention pending compliance and litigation.
• The main legal issues: Whether the PDP complied with its own Constitution, the Electoral Act/1999 Constitution, and INEC guidelines (e.g., valid state congresses, 21-day notice, proper timetable).
• Whether INEC’s role (monitoring, recognising outcomes) is being properly engaged or is being circumvented.
• Which court’s order takes precedence — given federal vs state jurisdiction in party and elections law.
• Practical consequence: The PDP is in a legal limbo. If it proceeds with the convention relying on the Ibadan court order, it risks running foul of the Abuja court orders; if it waits on compliance/litigation, its preparations are delayed and its internal contest (chairmanship, leadership) is stalled.
Sequence of Court Orders in Abuja
1. First Restraining Order – October 31 (Justice James Omotosho)
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, first restrained the PDP from conducting its planned national convention slated for November 15–16 in Ibadan, Oyo State.
Grounds: The court found that the PDP failed to issue the mandatory 21-day notice to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as required by law.
Order: INEC was also barred from supervising or recognising the outcome of any convention held in violation of this provision.
Implication: This order effectively placed a legal freeze on the convention process, forcing the PDP to suspend all preparatory activities until further notice.
2. Second Interim Order – November 1 (Justice Peter Lifu)
A day later, in a separate but related proceeding, Justice Peter Lifu also issued an interim injunction restraining the PDP from proceeding with its national convention pending the hearing of Lamido’s substantive suit.
Lamido’s Argument: He alleged that the PDP’s refusal to sell him the nomination form for national chairman violated the party’s constitution and denied him a fair opportunity to contest.
Court’s Ruling: Justice Lifu held that Lamido’s application was meritorious, noting that: the PDP failed to properly publish the convention timetable as required by its own rules.
The balance of convenience favoured Lamido, who stood to suffer greater harm if unlawfully excluded.
The court also restrained INEC from monitoring or recognising the convention’s outcome until the case was decided.
Condition: Lamido was directed to undertake to pay damages if his suit was later found frivolous.
3. Hearing and Judgment Date – November 13 (Justice Lifu)
After adopting written arguments from:
Jeph Njikonye, SAN (for Lamido),
Omokayode Dada, SAN (for the PDP),
Joseph Daudu, SAN (for joined parties),
and INEC’s counsel, Justice Lifu reserved judgment for Thursday, November 13, thereby sustaining the restraining order until the court delivers its final decision.
Lamido’s Reaction: “I Feel Like Crying”
Speaking with journalists after the proceedings, Lamido described his legal action as painful but necessary:
“Even though the court has stopped the convention, I feel like crying. I never imagined I would have to go to court against my own party. When brothers fight, the bond of trust and unity is broken.”
Lamido, a founding member of the PDP and former Minister of Foreign Affairs, recalled his long association with the party, which had elevated him to several positions. Yet, he said he was left with no choice but to seek justice after being denied access to the chairmanship nomination form.
Both Omotosho’s and Lifu’s orders effectively suspend the PDP’s 2025 national convention. The party cannot proceed or release a new schedule until the legal questions are resolved.
The restraining orders also bar INEC from monitoring or recognising any parallel or unauthorized convention, ensuring that any leadership elected in defiance of the orders will be illegitimate.
Lamido’s suit exposes deep internal divisions within the PDP and raises constitutional issues regarding transparency, fairness, and inclusivity in party processes.
If the injunctions persist, the PDP may face a leadership vacuum or factional crisis, potentially weakening its preparations ahead of the 2027 general elections.
In essence, two separate but converging court rulings — by Justices Omotosho and Lifu — have stopped the PDP national convention, pending the determination of Sule Lamido’s lawsuit. While Lamido insists his action is to restore justice and due process within the party, the development highlights a growing tension between party loyalty and legal accountability within Nigeria’s major opposition party.
