By EgbemaVoice
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court Abuja, has restrained the Kabiru Turaki-led National Working Committee (NWC) from gaining access into the national secretariat of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Abuja.
Justice Abdulmalik made the order while delivering judgment in a suit instituted by a group of the party loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike.
Justice Abdulmalik also ordered security agencies, including the Nigerian Police Force (NPF), Department of State Services (DSS), among others, to give adequate protection to the PDP led by Abdulrahman Mohammed while accessing the secretariat.
The judge held that the purported national convention held by the Turaki-led group on November 15 and 16, 2025, in Ibadan and the election of the party’s officials, against the valid court orders, was a nullity.
She said the convention violated Section 287(3) of the Nigerian Constitution (as amended), as well as the PDP’s constitution.
The judge described the expulsion of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, and his allies from the party during the 2025 convention as an affront to the order of the court.
“I considered the expulsion of the members of the plaintiffs as not only an affront to the subsisting judgment, but also a direct assault on a democratic and principled society,” the judge said.
She said such action had no place where the rule of law is in practice.
According to the judge, 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 camp of the FCT minister, led by its acting National Chairman, Mohammed Abdulrahman, had filed the suit.
In the suit, the PDP, Abdulrahman, and the National Secretary, Samuel Anyanwu, had prayed the court to stop the police and DSS from allowing Turaki-led leadership (listed as fifth to 25th defendants) access to the party’s national secretariat at Wadara Plaza in Abuja.
They also sought an order of injunction, restraining INEC 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 further sought an order of injunction, restraining the Turaki leadership from parading themselves as representatives of the PDP in any capacity whatsoever, among other reliefs.
Justice Abdulmalik had earlier granted an ex parte motion brought by the plaintiffs directing parties not to take any action pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Following the order, the Turaki-led faction challenged the decision 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.
The Turaki group, through their lawyer, equally filed a motion on notice asking Justice Abdulmalik to recuse (withdraw) herself from the case.
They argued that there existed a reasonable and well-founded apprehension of the likelihood of bias against them in the manner the suit had been handled by the judge.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that, in line with the Constitution and other enabling statutes, including earlier judgments, it would not shy away from its duty to do what is just in the circumstances.
The judge said that the main determinant of the case is Section 287(3) of the Constitution, which provides that the decisions of the Federal High Court and other courts established by the Constitution shall be enforced by all authorities and persons across the federation.
She observed that “in spite of the judgments which have not been set aside, the fifth to 25th defendants went ahead and organised the convention.”
Justice Abdulmalik added that those same judgments had also been affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
She further cited that a party’s constitution is meant to be followed by its members; hence, the issues raised in the originating summons by the plaintiffs were meritorious.
She, therefore, granted the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought.
“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 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 ruled.
Justice Abdulmalik said the plaintiffs (Wike’s group) were entitled to remain in office and continue to use the party’s national secretariat and properties.
‘No Shred Of Evidence’
On the application filed for the judge to recuse herself from the case, she held that the Turaki-led faction failed to substantiate the argument with evidence that the court was biased.
She also held that allegations of bias must be proven with credible evidence, not mere suspicion.
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 she found “no shred of evidence” to justify the allegation and stressed that the mere grant of an 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 was “not the place of counsel to determine which judge will hear and determine their case.”
Justice Abdulmalik further stated that any dissatisfaction with her decisions was a matter for appeal, not recusal, and consequently refused the application for lack of merit.
On the motion challenging the competence of the suit, the judge also declined to strike out the case.
She further rejected the arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs had no locus standi.
The defendants had argued that the dispute was purely an internal party affair, an abuse of court process, and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the suit.
In her decision, the judge held that “jurisdiction is the lifewire and pillar upon which any matter can be determined” and must be assessed based on the originating processes.
She found that the claims involved the interpretation and enforcement of constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as compliance with earlier court judgments.
She, therefore, agreed with the plaintiffs that the suit was within the court’s jurisdiction.
The judge, who held that the objections raised by the defendants lacked merit, dismissed the application in its entirety.
Comments