Court Adjourns PDP Leadership Dispute Case To January 23

The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the hearing of an application for stay of proceedings filed by the Kabiru Turaki-led Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) faction against a suit filed by the faction aligned with FCT Minister Nyesom Wike.

Naija News reports that the adjournment was made for January 23, 2025, to allow Onyechi Ikpeazu, counsel for the plaintiffs, respond to the stay application.

The case revolves around a legal battle for the control of the PDP leadership, with the Wike-led faction seeking a court order to stop the Turaki-led faction from parading themselves as the party’s representatives.

The Wike-led PDP, through its acting National Chairman, Mohammed Abdulrahman and factional National Secretary, Samuel Anyanwu, filed the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2501/2025.

They are asking the court to issue an order restraining the Turaki-led faction from representing the PDP and to prevent the police and the Department of State Services (DSS) from granting them access to the party’s national secretariat at Wadata Plaza, Abuja.

Additionally, the plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) should not accept any office address from the Turaki faction other than the one already in its records.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had earlier granted an ex parte order directing all parties involved not to take any action pending the resolution of the suit.

However, the Turaki-led faction filed an appeal against the decision, along with a motion for stay of proceedings and a recusal motion, citing alleged bias by the judge.

When the matter was heard on Wednesday, Ikpeazu, counsel for the Wike-led faction, confirmed that the plaintiffs were ready to proceed with the case, but Turaki’s counsel, Chief Chris Uche, informed the court of the appeal entered at the Court of Appeal, marked CA/ABJ/CV/1770/2025.

“We have filed an appeal against my lord’s decision, and we have a duty to report to your lordship that that appeal has now been entered in the Court of Appeal,” Uche told the court.

Uche argued that the trial court should suspend all proceedings until the appeal is resolved, citing Secondus vs. Ibaochi Alex as precedent.

Ikpeazu countered Uche’s claims, asserting that an appeal does not automatically result in a stay of proceedings.

“The appeal is against an interlocutory decision of my lord, and under Order 4, Rules 11(2) of the Court of Appeal rules, a stay is not automatic,” he said.

Justice Abdulmalik asked if Ikpeazu had been served with the stay motion, to which Ikpeazu responded that the motion had been served “very late yesterday”. The judge directed him to file a formal response and adjourned the case to January 23, 2025, for the hearing of the stay application.

Uche also filed a motion for recusal, asking Justice Abdulmalik to withdraw from the case and have the file reassigned to another judge.

He alleged that the defendants had petitioned the Chief Judge, accusing Abdulmalik and two other judges of perceived partisanship in handling PDP internal dispute cases.

Uche pointed to the ex parte order made on November 25, 2025, which he claimed mirrored an order made by Hon. Justice Omotosho in another case involving the defendants, suggesting a pattern of bias.

Speaking with journalists after the court session, the National Publicity Secretary of the PDP National Working Caretaker Committee, Jungudo Mohammed, expressed optimism that the court would grant the plaintiffs’ request, citing two previous Federal High Court judgments.

“As you are aware, previously, there were two final judgments of the federal high court stopping any planned convention in Oyo. Unfortunately, some recalcitrant members of the party went ahead and conducted that convention.

“The main substantive issue here is that we are praying the court to restrict those people parading themselves as national officers of the party,” he said.

Mohammed added that the plaintiffs are relying on the two earlier judgments as the basis for their request, although he refrained from preempting the court’s decision.