A Federal High Court in Abuja has slated November 11 to deliver a ruling on an application filed by former Governor Sule Lamido of Jigawa, seeking to restrain the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from holding its National Convention scheduled for November 15 and 16 in Ibadan, Oyo State.
Justice Peter Lifu fixed the date after defence lawyers adopted their affidavits to show cause why the interim order should not be granted, while the plaintiff’s counsel adopted his counter-affidavit and argued his case.
Lamido, in the motion ex parte moved by his lawyer, Jeph Njikonye, SAN, on October 31, prayed the court to grant an interim order pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed alongside.
The former governor argued that if the PDP was not restrained, the party would be violating its constitution and, by implication, denying him the opportunity to contest for the position of national chairman – a position he said he is eminently qualified to contest.
In an earlier ruling, Justice Lifu declined to grant the motion marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2299/2025 and instead ordered the PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), who are the 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit, to show cause why Lamido’s reliefs should not be granted.
The judge directed the defendants to respond within 72 hours from the date of service and adjourned the matter to November 6 for hearing.
At the resumed hearing, Njikonye, appearing for Lamido, recalled that on October 31, the court ordered the PDP and INEC to show cause why the application should not be granted.
Omokayode Dada, SAN, representing the PDP, and Adamu Bello, appearing for INEC, told the court that their separate affidavits to show cause had been filed and served on all parties.
Joseph Daudu, SAN, also announced his appearance for parties seeking to be joined in the suit. Those seeking to be joined include Hon. Austine Nwachukwu, Imo PDP Chairman; Hon. Amah Abraham Nnanna, Abia PDP Chairman; and Hon. Turnah George, said to be the PDP Secretary for the South-South geopolitical zone.
Daudu informed the court that their application, dated and filed on November 5, included the certified true copy of a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho on October 31, which restrained INEC from monitoring or recognising the scheduled PDP national convention. He said the applicants sought an order joining them as necessary parties and a consequential order to amend all processes filed in the suit.
Justice Lifu granted the request after no party opposed it.
Adopting his process, PDP’s lawyer, Dada, said the affidavit to show cause was filed on November 4 and argued that, contrary to Lamido’s claim, he was not denied the purchase of a nomination form.
According to the PDP’s affidavit, the period fixed by the National Working Committee (NWC) for the purchase of nomination forms for all aspirants in the forthcoming convention had elapsed before October 27, when Lamido arrived at the party’s National Headquarters.
The affidavit added that the party’s leadership had approved the timetable and schedule of activities for the 2025 elective national convention between September 3 and September 30. It stated that the party and its members are bound by its constitution, guidelines, and decisions, and insisted it had not violated any provisions or infringed on any aspirant’s rights.
Dada further argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter, as it fell within the internal affairs of the party, and urged the court to dismiss the application.
INEC’s counsel, Bello, also prayed the court to refuse Lamido’s application, noting that the commission had filed a 13-paragraph affidavit to show cause on November 4 in compliance with the court’s order.
‘I adopt the application for the court to refuse the motion in the interest of justice,’ Bello said, adding that the reliefs sought against INEC in the motion ex parte were substantially the same as those in Lamido’s originating summons pending before the court.
He argued that granting the interim or interlocutory injunction sought would amount to prejudging the substantive issues in the suit.
Bello also contended that the plaintiff’s application was an invitation for the court to interfere in the internal affairs of the PDP, a political party. INEC, in its affidavit, maintained that a court of record should not dabble into political questions, which are the exclusive preserve of political parties.
In response, Lamido’s counsel, Njikonye, disagreed with the submissions of both the PDP and INEC.
He urged the court to take judicial notice of Exhibit D in Daudu’s joinder application – the judgment delivered by Justice Omotosho – and prayed the court to refuse the PDP’s application and discountenance INEC’s argument.
Njikonye cited a Supreme Court decision guiding how INEC should conduct itself, adding: ‘It is therefore within the purview of Your Lordship to make the right and appropriate order in this regard.’
Also speaking, Daudu said the essence of the requested order was purely preservative and would enable the court to have a substantive issue to decide upon.
Justice Lifu consequently adjourned the matter till November 11 for ruling and further proceedings.