By Yemi Oyeyemi, Abuja
Nigeria’s political landscape was jolted on Thursday as the Supreme Court nullified the 2025 National Convention of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), declaring the exercise illegal for violating a subsisting court order.
In a split 3–2 decision, the apex court ruled that the convention, held in Ibadan, Oyo State, between November 15 and 16, 2025, was conducted in defiance of a Federal High Court directive that had expressly barred the party from proceeding.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Stephen Jonah Adah described the action of the faction led by Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde as a “flagrant disobedience” of lawful court orders, warning that such conduct undermines the rule of law and democratic governance.
The court held that proceeding with the convention despite a valid restraining order amounted to an affront to judicial authority and eroded public confidence in the judiciary. It further ruled that all decisions and outcomes from the convention are null, void, and without legal effect.
Implications for PDP and Nigeria’s Democracy
The ruling throws the PDP into fresh uncertainty, as party leaders elected at the invalidated convention now lack legal standing. This development is expected to trigger leadership disputes, weaken internal cohesion, and complicate preparations for future elections.
The judgment reinforces the supremacy of court orders in Nigeria’s democracy, sending a strong signal to political actors that disregard for judicial authority carries severe consequences. It may also embolden aggrieved party members to increasingly seek judicial intervention in intra-party disputes.
Court Condemns ‘Forum Shopping’
The Supreme Court also criticized the organizers for “forum shopping” – seeking favorable judgments from different courts after an unfavorable ruling. It specifically faulted the recourse to an Oyo State High Court after the Federal High Court had issued a restraining order.
While noting that both courts are of coordinate jurisdiction, the justices described the actions of those involved – including legal practitioners – as “shameful and embarrassing,” raising concerns about ethical standards within the legal profession.
Minority Warns Against Judicial Overreach
In a dissenting opinion, Justices Haruna Simon Tsanami and Abubakar Sadiq Umar argued that the dispute was an internal party matter that should not have been decided by the courts.
They held that Sule Lamido, who initiated the suit, failed to exhaust the PDP’s internal conflict resolution mechanisms before approaching the judiciary. The minority concluded that the case was not justiciable.
The controversy began when Lamido, a founding member of the PDP, alleged he was denied access to nomination forms to contest at the convention. Acting on his suit, the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Odo Lifu, ordered the party to suspend the convention pending compliance with legal requirements.
The court also restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from supervising or recognizing the convention’s outcome. Earlier, Justice James Omotosho had issued a similar order, citing failure to follow due process, including the mandatory 21-day notice to INEC.
Despite these directives, the PDP proceeded with the convention – an action now invalidated by the Supreme Court.
The Political Fallout
The ruling is likely to reshape internal dynamics within the PDP, potentially leading to fresh legal battles and calls for a new convention conducted in compliance with the law. It also raises questions about party discipline, internal democracy, and respect for judicial institutions in the political system.
For now, the opposition party faces a critical test: whether it can quickly rebuild consensus and restore credibility after a judgment that has not only nullified its leadership process but also spotlighted deeper structural challenges.
