Politics

Court stops INEC from recognizing PDP 2025 national convention outcome

Judge rules PDP failed to comply with electoral and party laws

The Federal High Court in Abuja has issued an order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing or publishing the results of the forthcoming 2025 National Convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

Justice James Omotosho, who delivered the judgment on Friday, held that the opposition party failed to comply with several statutory requirements governing the conduct of national conventions. The ruling followed a suit filed by three aggrieved members of the PDP who challenged the legality of the planned convention scheduled to take place in Ibadan, Oyo State, on November 15 and 16, 2025.

PDP breached mandatory pre-convention requirements, court rules

In his detailed judgment, Justice Omotosho noted that evidence presented before the court showed multiple procedural violations by the PDP in the build-up to its planned national convention.

He observed that the party failed to conduct valid state congresses in several states across the federation, a breach of both the PDP Constitution and the Electoral Act 2022.

“The evidence before this court from the electoral umpire and other respondents shows clearly that congresses were not held in some states of the federation. This amounts to a violation of the law and undermines the foundation of the planned convention,” the judge stated.

Justice Omotosho further ruled that notices and correspondence relating to the convention were invalid because they were signed by the National Chairman of the PDP without the co-signature of the National Secretary, as required by the party’s constitution.

“The signing of notices and correspondence by only the National Chairman, without the National Secretary, contravenes the law and renders such notices null and void,” he declared.

PDP failed to issue 21-day notice to INEC

The court also faulted the PDP for failing to give INEC the mandatory 21-day notice before holding its meetings and congresses. Such notice is required to allow the commission perform its constitutional duty of monitoring party congresses and conventions.

Justice Omotosho ruled that the failure to issue the required notice “has placed the entire convention in jeopardy.” He therefore advised the PDP to comply with all legal provisions before proceeding with the event.

Consequently, the court restrained INEC from receiving, publishing, or recognizing the outcome of the convention until the PDP meets all legal and constitutional conditions.

Three party members sued to halt the convention

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/2025, was filed by Austin Nwachukwu (Chairman, Imo PDP), Amah Abraham Nnanna (Chairman, Abia PDP), and Turnah Alabh George (Secretary, PDP South-South).

The plaintiffs, represented by Joseph Daudu (SAN), asked the court to halt the planned November convention, arguing that it was illegal and unconstitutional since no valid state congresses had been conducted in at least 14 states prior to the issuance of the convention notice.

They also contended that holding the convention under such circumstances would violate the principles of internal democracy as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act 2022, and the PDP Constitution.

INEC, PDP, and party leaders listed as defendants

The case had nine defendants, including the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the PDP, Samuel Anyanwu (National Secretary), Umar Bature (National Organizing Secretary), the National Working Committee (NWC), and the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party. Others listed were Ambassador Umar Iliya Damagum (Acting National Chairman), Ali Odefa, and Emmanuel Ogidi.

During proceedings, Daudu (SAN) argued that INEC’s constitutional role includes monitoring political party congresses and conventions to ensure compliance with the law. He maintained that where INEC confirms that congresses were not validly held, the court has the authority to intervene.

“The Constitution of Nigeria makes it mandatory for INEC to monitor congresses of political parties before they can be deemed valid,” Daudu submitted. “Our clients’ complaint is that no valid congresses were held in 14 states, yet the PDP proceeded to issue notices for a national convention.”

PDP leadership argues case is an internal affair

However, the PDP leadership opposed the suit, urging the court to decline jurisdiction. Counsel to the Acting National Chairman, Ambassador Umar Iliya Damagum, Paul Erokoro (SAN), argued that issues relating to conventions and congresses fall within the internal affairs of a political party and are therefore non-justiciable.

Erokoro’s position was supported by Eyitayo Jegede (SAN), who represented the National Working Committee (NWC) and the National Executive Committee (NEC). Jegede maintained that Nigerian courts have consistently ruled that internal party matters should not be interfered with unless they clearly breach national laws.

Despite these arguments, Justice Omotosho held that the matter transcended the PDP’s internal affairs because the alleged breaches directly affected INEC’s statutory responsibilities under the Electoral Act.

“The involvement of INEC and the failure to follow mandatory procedures make this a justiciable matter,” he ruled. “Political parties must operate within the boundaries of the law and their own constitutions.”

PDP advised to regularize processes before proceeding

In closing, Justice Omotosho emphasized that the ruling was not a permanent ban on the PDP convention but a temporary restraint pending the party’s full compliance with the law.

He advised the PDP to hold valid state congresses, issue proper notices, and ensure all required officers jointly sign official communications before proceeding with the national convention.

Until those steps are taken, INEC remains barred from recognizing or publishing any outcome from the proposed 2025 PDP National Convention.

The ruling marks another significant moment in Nigeria’s ongoing debate over political party reforms, internal democracy, and the role of judicial oversight in ensuring transparency in party administration.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button