The Federal High Court, located in Abuja, has arranged for a hearing regarding an application from the faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), led by Kabiru Turaki, set for January 23. This application seeks to pause proceedings in a lawsuit filed by the opposing faction allied with Nyesom Wike, who holds the position of Minister for the Federal Capital Territory.
On Wednesday, Judge Joyce Abdulmalik postponed the hearing to enable the Wike faction, represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Onyechi Ikpeazu, to reply to the motion for a stay that has been lodged by the Turaki faction of the party.
The faction led by Wike, through its acting chairperson, Mohammed Abdulrahman, along with factional secretary Samuel Anyanwu, initiated the legal action on November 21 of the previous year. Their aim was to prevent the Turaki faction from representing the party and to stop the police and SSS from permitting them access to the PDP secretariat located in Abuja.
This legal conflict came about following individual judgments delivered by Federal High Court judges, James Omotosho and Peter Lifu, on October 31 and November 11, which had preemptively halted the PDP from convening its national convention.
In contravention of these court orders, the faction allied with Turaki proceeded to hold a national convention in Ibadan, Oyo State, between November 15 and 16, 2025, where they elected their national officials. The Wike faction deemed this convention to be illegitimate and subsequently sought to annul it via legal proceedings.
Chris Uche, also a SAN representing the Turaki faction, conveyed in court that on December 5, they formally requested that Judge Abdulmalik withdraw from the case, necessitating an adjournment to allow the plaintiffs to respond accordingly.
He stated, "Even though the judge issued an order pending the hearing of the motion, they (the plaintiffs) have filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal (CA/ABJ/CV/1770/2025)."
The defense lawyer added that they had submitted an affidavit to inform the judge of this appeal. "All records have been submitted properly, and the plaintiffs are fully aware and have taken actions to file their processes in the appeal," he noted.
Additionally, a motion for further proceedings in the suit has been filed pending the appeal. Uche argued that once an appeal is in process, the trial court cannot proceed with the case, referencing the 2021 case of Secondus vs. Ibaochi Alex.
He urged the court to halt proceedings while the appeal is being processed and requested a postponement of the hearing.
Responding to this, Ikpeazu, representing the plaintiffs, recognized that an appeal had been made but contended that it does not automatically stop proceedings. He emphasized the importance of the appeal's nature in determining whether the case should move forward.
“According to Order 4, Rules 11(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, Sub 1 supports the application they have made, however, Sub 2 limits the scope of Sub 1,” he stated, arguing against granting a stay if the appeal is irrelevant to the case's subject matter.
Ikpeazu reiterated, "The crux of the matter is that the appeal is in response to an interlocutory decision of my lord,” asserting that it is within the court's rights to order a stay on actions while the case’s core issue remains unresolved.
He further argued that within the Federal High Court's regulations, the judge had acted appropriately in making her order, and highlighted that the defense had not submitted any application to overturn the ruling.
Ikpeazu implored the court to continue with proceedings, noting that a prior order had permitted all pending applications to be addressed. When questioned by Judge Abdulmalik regarding service of the stay application, Ikpeazu stated he had only received it the previous day and would only need to respond on legal points without further written documentation.
Judge Abdulmalik instructed him to submit a formal response and adjourned the case until January 23 for the hearing of the motion to stay further proceedings.
In this lawsuit, the Wike faction of the PDP, including acting National Chairman Alhaji Mohammed Abdulrahman and factional National Secretary Samuel Anyanwu, is seeking an injunction to prevent the Turaki-led faction from acting as representatives of the PDP in any capacity.
They also request the court to prohibit the police and SSS from allowing the Turaki faction access to the PDP's national headquarters at Wadara Plaza, Abuja. The plaintiffs aim to make sure the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) does not recognize any alternate address for the Turaki group beyond what is already recorded.
Furthermore, they have requested the court to declare that INEC, the police, and the SSS have a constitutional obligation to implement the decisions made by the Federal High Court as ruled by Judges James Omotosho and Peter Lifu.
Judge Abdulmalik previously granted the plaintiffs an ex-parte motion, instructing that no party should take actions pending the lawsuit's hearing and conclusion.
Following this, the defendants contested the ruling at the Court of Appeal and filed a motion to postpone proceedings until the Appeal Court reaches a verdict.
Their attorney, Uche, also submitted a motion requesting Judge Abdulmalik to recuse herself, arguing that there was a reasonable concern of bias in her handling of the case.
Consequently, they requested the judge to step down from the case and send the file to the Chief Judge for reassignment to another judge to ensure fair evaluation of the matter.
Uche presented twelve reasons supporting the application, arguing that the right to a fair hearing encompasses the right to an unbiased tribunal as protected under the Nigerian constitution. He claimed that the fifth through twenty-fifth defendants had officially petitioned the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to avoid assigning any matters related to the PDP's internal affairs to Judge Abdulmalik or two other judges from the Abuja judicial division due to prior behavior and perceived partiality.
The lawyer explained that the suit initiated on November 21 was handed to Judge Abdulmalik, who, on November 25, made an ex-parte ruling against the defendants using a format similar to one previously utilized by Judge James Omotosho against them.
He expressed that although it seemed the judge was declining the motion on paper, the orders given were even broader than the original requests of the plaintiffs, which raised suspicions. Uche affirmed that the ex-parte orders were issued without urgency and addressed fundamental aspects of the case at a preliminary level.
Comments (0)
You must be logged in to comment.
Be the first to comment on this article!