A Federal High Court in Abuja has barred a faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), led by Dr. Kabiru Turaki, from accessing the party’s national secretariat.
In a judgement on Monday, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik granted the order in a suit filed by PDP members loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Barrister Nyesom Wike.
The court also directed security agencies, including the Nigeria Police Force and the Department of State Services (DSS), to provide protection for the Wike-backed faction to access and operate from the party’s national headquarters.
Justice Abdulmalik said that the national convention organised on 15 and 16 November, last year in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, which produced the Turaki-led faction, was conducted in defiance of subsisting court orders.
She said that the exercise, therefore, amounted to a nullity, citing a breach of section 287(3) of the 1999 constitution (as amended) as well as the PDP’s constitution.
The judge described the expulsion of Wike and his allies from the party during the 2025 convention as an affront to the order of court.
She said: ‘I considered the expulsion of the members of the plaintiffs as not only an affront to the subsisting judgement, but also a direct assault on a democratic and principled society.
‘All proceedings, resolutions and decisions taken at the said convention, including the suspension of members of the first plaintiff, were unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void, and of no effect’.
The PDP headquarters was in chaos last 18 November as supporters of both factions clashed over access to the Wadata Plaza complex in Wuse Zone 5.
Shortly after the suit was filed by Wike’s faction, led by the then Chairman of the party’s Caretaker Committee, Hon. Abdulrahman Mohammed, and the committee’s Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu.
The plaintiffs prayed the court to restrain the Turaki-led group from representing the party and to bar the police and DSS from granting them access to the PDP secretariat in Abuja.
They also sought an order of injunction, restraining Independent National Electoral Commission from accepting any other office address or any other address from the Turaki-led leadership as the PDP’s office address other than as already contained in the commission’s records.
They sought an order of injunction, restraining the Turaki leadership (5th to 25 defendants) from parading themselves as representatives of the PDP in any capacity whatsoever, among other reliefs.
Abdulmalik had earlier granted an ex parte motion directing parties not to take any action pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Following the order, the Turaki’s faction had challenged the interim order at the court of appeal.
They also filed an application for the court to stay proceedings in the suit pending the decision of the appeal court.
A motion was also filed at the trial court asking Abdulmalik to recuse herself from the case on the grounds of bias.
Delivering final judgement, Justice Abdulmalik held that the Turaki-led faction failed to substantiate the argument of bias to make her withdraw from presiding over the case.
The judge observed that claims of a ‘likelihood of bias’ are ‘a state of mind, incapable of precise definition’, and must be supported by ‘cogent and credible evidence’.
The judge said that she found ‘no shred of evidence’ to justify the allegation and stressed that the mere grant of ex-parte order did not amount to bias.
On the request to transfer the case back to the Chief Judge (CJ) for reassignment, she held that the power to assign cases lies with the CJ and that it is ‘not the place of counsel to determine which judge will hear and determine their case’.
She noted that any dissatisfaction with her decisions is a matter for appeal, not recusal, and consequently refused the application for lack of merit.
On the substantive issue before the court, Abdulmalik held that the defendants disobeyed court orders by conducting the Ibadan convention.
‘In spite of the judgements which have not been set aside, the fifth to 25th defendants went ahead and organised the convention’, the judge said, adding that those same judgements had also been affirmed by the court of appeal.
The judge said: ‘The defendants are bound to comply with and give full effect to the subsisting judgments of the federal high court earlier referred to.
‘The first to the fourth defendants are not entitled to recognise or give effect, in any manner whatsoever, to the purported National Convention held on 15 and 16 November 2025 by the fifth to 25th defendants and their associates.
‘The purported convention, including the election of officers and suspension of members, is unconstitutional, null and void’.
She also ordered the DSS and the police to provide adequate security for the plaintiffs in the use of the party’s national secretariat.
The court also restrained the fifth to the 25th defendants from entering, using, or interfering with the party’s properties, including holding meetings or events at the national secretariat.
The court further restrained INEC from accepting any address for the party other than the one already recognised in its records.
