By Vivian Okejeme & Stanley Onyekwere, Abuja
The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, Monday, upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, against the November 15 and 16, 2025, Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) National Convention in Ibadan, Oyo state capital.
The lower court had on October 31, 2025, restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, from recognizing the outcome of the convention.
Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam held that PDP violated Constitutional provisions required before such convention can become valid.
The appellate court held that no valid of convention notice was served on the INEC as required by law adding that valid congresses were not held in more than 14 states as provided by law before 2025 convention was put in place.
The judgement maintained that case of the aggrieved PDP members who instituted the case against the party was not on internal affairs of the party as erroneously held.
However, the appeal was a desire to force the electoral umpire to comply with its statutory functions in relation to party conventions.
The court held that the faction failed to comply with the relevant laws like 1999 Constitution, Electoral Act 2022 and party Constitution and Guidelines that governs the process.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal held that the Federal High Court was right in assuming jurisdiction and grant restraining order against INEC from accepting or recognising the outcome of the PDP 2025 national convention.
“Non compliance with the 1999 Constitution, Electoral Act 2022 and party Constitution and Guidelines are at the hearts of democratic governance and compliance must be strictly enforced in the interest of democracy”
Recall that Justice James Omotosho had on October 31, 2025, issued the order that restrained INEC from recognizing the outcome of the Ibadan convention until all provisions of the laws are complied with.
The judge predicated the decision on the grounds that the PDP failed to comply with relevant conditions and laws for the conduct of such conventions.
The judge had held that evidence provided by the electoral umpire and some of the aggrieved PDP members showed that congresses were not held in some states of the federation in breach of the law.
In addition, the lower court had also held that the signing of notices and correspondence of the PDP by its National Chairman without the National Secretary violated the law and consequently made such notices and correspondences a nullity.
Besides, Justice Omotosho held that the PDP failed to issue the mandatory 21 days notice of meetings and congresses to enable INEC carry out its mandatory duty of monitoring such meetings and congresses.
Justice Omotosho held that the failure of the PDP to comply with the law has put the then planned convention in jeopardy, and subsequently advised the PDP to do the necessary before going ahead with the election.
Three aggrieved members of the party who instituted the case are Austin Nwachukwu (Imo PDP chairman), Amah Abraham Nnanna (Abia PDP chairman) and Turnah Alabh George (PDP Secretary, South-South).
The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/2025 was instituted on their behalf by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria SAN, Joseph Daudu.
The plaintiffs had asked the court to stop the planned November 15 and 16, 2025 National Convention of PDP, scheduled for Ibadan in Oyo State, where new national officers are expected to be elected.
The nine defendants are Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), PDP, Samuel Anyanwu, National Secretary of the party, Umar Baturrle, National Organizing Secretary of the party, NWC and NEC of the party, Ambassador Umar Iliya Damagum, Ali Odefa and Emmanuel Ogidi.
He equally gave a plethora of cases to back his argument.
In the affidavit in support of the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, averred that on Feb. 19 at about 2p.m., officers from the ICPC and Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence under a purported search warrant issued on or about Feb. 4.
According to him, the said warrant is invalid due to its lack of specificity, errors, and other defects as outlined in the grounds of this application.
He said the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”
Shaba stated that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as provided by the law before proceeding with the search.
“That the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district wherein he sits.
“That during the invasion, the officers searched the applicant’s premises without lawful authority, seized personal items including documents and electronic devices, and caused the applicant undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.
“Now shown to me and marked as ‘EXHIBIT B’ Is the list of the items carted away.
“That no items seized have been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence.
“That the applicant suffered violations of his constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good faith to enforce same,” Shaba said.
