Court adjourns suit seeking to stop PDP convention as internal party disputes over legal representation create significant procedural hurdles, delaying critical decisions on the party’s future leadership.
The Impasse Over Representation – A Battle of Senior Advocates
The Federal High Court in Abuja found itself at the center of a rather theatrical legal drama on Tuesday, as a crucial suit aimed at halting the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) national convention devolved into a fierce contest over who possessed the legitimate authority to represent the party. The planned convention, slated for November 15 and 16, 2025, in Ibadan, Oyo State, now hangs precariously in the balance, its fate inextricably linked to the resolution of this internal legal wrangling. The presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, was compelled to adjourn proceedings until Thursday, a decision necessitated by the irreconcilable standoffs between two prominent Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs): Chris Uche and Kamaldeen Ajibade. Both legal titans, armed with seemingly conflicting instructions and assertions of authority, laid claim to representing the PDP in the contentious case. This dispute over legal representation is not merely a procedural quibble; it strikes at the very heart of the party’s governance and decision-making processes, potentially exposing deeper fissures within its leadership structure. The plaintiffs, a coalition of state chairmen and zonal officers—Austin Nwachukwu (Imo State Chairman), Amah Nnanna (Abia State Chairman), and Turnah George (South-South Zonal Secretary)—have initiated this suit to prevent the convention, citing alleged violations of the PDP Constitution, the Electoral Act 2022, and relevant party regulations. Their core argument is that the party’s leadership has engaged in illegal and unconstitutional actions by sidelining them, despite their status as registered members and current officeholders who intend to contest positions in the upcoming convention. The gravity of their claims, coupled with the visible discord among those purporting to defend the party, underscored the urgency of the situation, yet also highlighted the profound challenge Justice Omotosho faced in navigating this complex legal and political terrain. The court’s inability to proceed with the substantive matter, due to the conflicting legal claims, underscores a fundamental question: how can a party effectively defend itself or engage in critical decision-making processes when its legal voice is fractured and contested?
The intricacies of the legal challenge presented by the plaintiffs are multifaceted and rooted in allegations of procedural impropriety and a lack of democratic adherence. They argue that the very foundation of the upcoming convention is flawed, as it allegedly bypasses established internal democratic procedures required by both the PDP’s constitution and national electoral laws. This contention is particularly significant as it questions the legitimacy of the entire convention process, from the selection of delegates to the election of new party officials. The plaintiffs’ plea for the court to direct all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum—to revert to the state before the dispute—is a standard legal maneuver designed to prevent irreversible actions that could render any subsequent court ruling moot. Their specific requests include restraining the defendants from proceeding with the convention itself, as well as barring the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from monitoring the exercise. Furthermore, they seek to halt any meetings, including those of the National Executive Committee, National Caucus, or National Working Committee, scheduled for October 15, 2025, which they believe are precursors to the allegedly unconstitutional convention. The plaintiffs’ carefully articulated grievances paint a picture of a party grappling with internal power struggles that threaten to undermine its democratic credentials. Their assertion that preparations for the convention are continuing “despite the pendency of their case” further amplifies their concern that their legal and political interests are being deliberately jeopardized. This adds a layer of urgency to the court proceedings, as the plaintiffs perceive an active effort to circumvent their legal recourse through the swift advancement of the convention process.
The pivotal moment in Tuesday’s proceedings, however, was the dramatic clash between Chris Uche and Kamaldeen Ajibade. Uche, presenting his case, declared that he was acting on instructions from the PDP’s National Chairman, Umar Damagum, and produced a letter to substantiate his claim. This assertion immediately drew a strong objection from Ajibade, who identified himself as the party’s National Legal Adviser. Ajibade vehemently argued that, by virtue of his constitutional position within the party, he alone possessed the authority to brief external counsel on behalf of the PDP. He fortified his stance by citing relevant judicial precedents, a move that clearly signaled his unwavering conviction in his right to represent the party. The ensuing disagreement was described as “heated,” a testament to the deep-seated nature of the conflict. Justice Omotosho, faced with this intractable stalemate, opted for a pragmatic approach. He ordered the legal teams and their clients out of the courtroom for a brief recess, a ten-minute window intended for the parties to attempt an amicable resolution to their dispute. This pause, however, proved insufficient to bridge the chasm between the opposing factions. Upon their return, Uche informed the court that no agreement had been reached. He reiterated his instructions from the National Chairman and urged the court to proceed with the hearing, emphasizing that “deliberate efforts” had been made to resolve the “minor matter.” He presented the letter from the National Chairman as definitive proof of his mandate. Ajibade, in stark contrast, refuted Uche’s narrative. He asserted that he had not requested more time and maintained that the PDP’s constitution unequivocally vested in him the power to brief external counsel. More alarmingly, Ajibade alleged that he had been subjected to threats during the recess outside the courtroom, even implicating an aide of a governor in these intimidations. His impassioned declaration, “What my learned friend said is not true… This issue cannot be resolved here in court; it must follow the PDP Constitution,” underscored the breakdown of any semblance of collegiality and highlighted the personal animosity that had infiltrated the legal proceedings. This dramatic turn of events, from a legal dispute to allegations of threats, elevated the stakes considerably and demonstrated the volatile undercurrents within the PDP’s internal politics. The court’s decision to adjourn was not just about procedural delays; it was a recognition of the profound disarray within the party’s legal and leadership structures, a disarray that threatened to paralyze its ability to function and make critical decisions.
The plaintiffs’ Grievances and the Allegations of Sidelining
The suit filed by Austin Nwachukwu, Amah Nnanna, and Turnah George is not merely a procedural objection to a convention; it is a direct challenge to the legitimacy of leadership decisions and the democratic processes within the PDP. Their core argument rests on the assertion that they, as current officeholders and registered members with aspirations to contest positions at the convention, have been systematically marginalized through “illegal and unconstitutional” actions by the party’s leadership. This claim of being “sidelined” is a potent accusation, suggesting a deliberate exclusion from the internal democratic mechanisms that should govern the party’s progression. The plaintiffs contend that the planned convention violates fundamental tenets of the PDP Constitution, the Electoral Act 2022, and the Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties 2022. This is not a minor infraction; it signifies a potential disregard for the very legal framework that underpins political party operations in Nigeria. Their emphasis on the failure to comply with “required internal democratic procedures” points to a perceived erosion of fairness and transparency in the party’s internal affairs.
The plaintiffs’ argument is further bolstered by their specific requests for court intervention. They seek an order restraining the defendants from proceeding with the convention, scheduled for November 15-16, 2025, in Ibadan. This is a critical demand, as it aims to prevent the legalization of any outcomes derived from an allegedly flawed process. Moreover, they implore the court to bar INEC from monitoring the exercise. This is a significant move, as INEC’s monitoring lends legitimacy to party conventions and elections. By seeking to exclude INEC, the plaintiffs are attempting to starve the convention of external validation, thereby undermining its perceived authority even before it takes place. Their plea for the court to direct all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum underscores their desire to freeze the current situation and prevent any further actions that could prejudice their substantive case. This includes refraining from taking any steps that could negatively impact their application for an interlocutory injunction. The plaintiffs’ contention that “despite the pendency of their case, the defendants continued preparations for the convention” highlights their perception of a deliberate attempt to preempt judicial intervention and solidify a predetermined outcome. This perceived proactive advancement of the convention, in the face of legal challenges, fuels their belief that their legal and political interests are under direct threat.
The implications of these allegations are far-reaching. If the court finds merit in the plaintiffs’ claims, it could lead to the nullification of the convention, a significant setback for the PDP and its leadership. It also raises questions about the internal accountability mechanisms within the party. When party officials feel marginalized and believe that democratic processes are being subverted, it can lead to internal schisms, factionalism, and a decline in party cohesion. The plaintiffs’ decision to take their grievances to court signifies a breakdown in internal conflict resolution mechanisms. It suggests that they have exhausted all available avenues within the party and now see the judiciary as their last resort. This is a common, albeit often undesirable, outcome in political party disputes, where internal disagreements spill over into public legal battles, often with significant reputational and operational consequences for the party. The plaintiffs’ standing as current officeholders and intending contestants adds weight to their claims, as they have a direct stake in the integrity of the convention process and a clear understanding of the internal dynamics at play. Their suit, therefore, is not just about legal technicalities; it is a fight for what they perceive as their rightful place and influence within the PDP, and a demand for adherence to the democratic principles they believe should govern the party.
The Legal Battleground – Conflicting Claims of Authority
The heart of the legal imbroglio lies in the diametrically opposed claims of authority between Chris Uche, SAN, and Kamaldeen Ajibade, SAN. This confrontation is not just a clash between two learned silks; it is a manifestation of a deeper organizational conflict within the PDP regarding its legal representation. Chris Uche asserted his mandate based on instructions from the PDP’s National Chairman, Umar Damagum, backed by a letter of instruction. This move suggests an attempt by the National Chairman to assert his prerogative in appointing legal counsel for the party, potentially bypassing established internal structures or individuals. The National Chairman, in many political party constitutions, holds significant executive power, and his instruction to brief a particular counsel could be seen as a direct exercise of that authority. Uche’s reliance on this letter implies that his instructions are derived from the highest executive office within the party, intending to present a unified front under the Chairman’s direction.
Kamaldeen Ajibade, on the other hand, positioned himself as the rightful representative by virtue of his constitutional role as the PDP’s National Legal Adviser. His argument hinges on the specific provisions of the PDP Constitution, which he contends vests in him the exclusive power to brief external counsel on behalf of the party. This claim is significant because it points to a hierarchical structure where the National Legal Adviser acts as the gatekeeper for all external legal engagements. Ajibade’s insistence on this constitutional authority suggests that the National Chairman’s instruction, while potentially valid in some contexts, may have been issued in contravention of established party law. His citation of judicial authorities further strengthens his position, indicating that his understanding of party law and legal representation is grounded in established legal principles and precedents. This creates a direct conflict: is the appointment of legal counsel solely at the discretion of the National Chairman, or is it a function that must be exercised through or in consultation with the National Legal Adviser, as dictated by the party’s constitution?
The ensuing “heated disagreement” highlighted the intensity of this battle. It wasn’t just a difference of opinion; it was a fundamental dispute over who had the legitimate power to speak for the PDP in a court of law. This kind of conflict can paralyze a legal defense, creating uncertainty for the court and potentially leaving the party vulnerable. Justice Omotosho’s attempt to facilitate an “amicable resolution” by asking the parties to step out of the courtroom for ten minutes was a wise, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, intervention. It acknowledged the need for internal party harmony to facilitate legal processes. However, the fact that no agreement was reached underscores the depth of the division. Uche’s subsequent insistence on proceeding, armed with the Chairman’s letter, and Ajibade’s staunch refusal, coupled with allegations of threats, painted a grim picture of the internal dynamics. Ajibade’s claim of being threatened, even mentioning an aide of a governor, adds a disturbing layer to the dispute, suggesting that the conflict might extend beyond mere legal wrangling to involve more coercive tactics.
The implication of this legal standoff is profound. If the court is unable to definitively determine who has the authority to represent the PDP, it cannot proceed with the substantive case. This is precisely what happened, leading to the adjournment. The judge’s warning against “further delays” and his observation that “politicians are funny; judicial processes should not be made nugatory” speaks volumes about the frustration of the judicial system when faced with internal political machinations that obstruct justice. The PDP, in this instance, appears to be suffering from a severe case of organizational dysfunction, where fundamental issues of representation are being contested in the public square of the courtroom. This not only delays justice but also potentially damages the party’s reputation and its ability to govern itself effectively. The court’s decision to grant the PDP an “opportunity to resolve its internal differences” before proceeding is a concession to the political reality, but it also places the onus on the party to rectify its internal governance issues, failing which the court will be forced to make a ruling that might be detrimental to one faction or the other, or even to the party as a whole. The joinder applications by the National Chairman and other party officers further complicate matters, indicating a desire by various factions to have their voices heard directly in the proceedings, thereby escalating the internal power struggle into a multi-party legal contest.
The Implications of Convention Disruption and Internal Strife
The potential disruption of the PDP’s national convention carries significant implications not only for the party itself but also for the broader Nigerian political landscape. A national convention is a critical juncture for any political party, serving as the apex decision-making body responsible for ratifying party policies, electing national executives, and setting the strategic direction for future electoral engagements. Any impediment to this process, particularly one stemming from internal legal disputes, can create a leadership vacuum, sow seeds of discord, and undermine the party’s ability to present a united front. The specific concerns raised by the plaintiffs—that the convention violates the PDP Constitution, the Electoral Act 2022, and related regulations—suggest a potential for the entire exercise to be deemed illegitimate. If the court were to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, it could invalidate any decisions made at the convention, including the election of the party’s national leadership. This would necessitate a repeat of the convention process, leading to further delays, financial expenditure, and considerable political instability within the party.
The current dispute over legal representation, as evidenced by the clash between Chris Uche and Kamaldeen Ajibade, exemplifies the deep-seated internal strife that can plague political parties. The fact that two Senior Advocates, representing presumably different factions or interpretations of authority within the PDP, are locked in such a public and heated disagreement highlights a breakdown in communication and conflict resolution mechanisms. This internal disarray can have a ripple effect, impacting the party’s electoral prospects and its capacity to function as a cohesive political force. When a significant portion of the party membership, particularly officeholders, feels marginalized and believes that democratic procedures are being flouted, it can lead to disillusionment, defections, and a weakening of the party’s electoral base. The plaintiffs’ stated intention to contest positions in the convention, but feeling “sidelined,” underscores this point. Their exclusion, if proven, could alienate a segment of the party’s active membership and leadership, potentially affecting voter mobilization and support in future elections.
Furthermore, the judicial intervention itself, while necessary for resolving legal disputes, can inadvertently become a stage for political maneuvering. The joinder applications filed by the PDP National Chairman, Umar Damagum, and other party officers like Chief Ali Odefa and Emmanuel Ogidi, signal a broader engagement with the legal battle by various power blocs within the party. Each party seeking to be joined likely aims to influence the court’s decision or at least ensure their perspective is considered. This can transform the initial suit into a complex multi-party litigation, further complicating the resolution of the convention dispute and potentially prolonging the period of uncertainty. The arguments presented by the counsel for these joining parties—that Damagum is a “necessary party” due to his leadership roles, and that Odefa and Ogidi are party officers whose interests are directly affected—demonstrate the interconnectedness of the internal power struggles with the legal proceedings.
The plaintiffs’ counsel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), opposing these joinder applications and arguing that the chairman is “not a necessary party” based on the plaintiffs’ claims, underscores the strategic legal battles being fought alongside the political ones. This intricate web of legal arguments and political interests means that the resolution of the convention dispute will likely hinge not just on procedural legality but also on the court’s interpretation of the PDP’s internal power dynamics and constitutional framework. The judge’s admonition that “judicial processes should not be made nugatory” serves as a stark reminder that the court is not a playground for political games, but a forum for dispensing justice. The adjournment, therefore, is not merely a delay; it is a critical period for the PDP to introspect, to resolve its internal conflicts, and to demonstrate a commitment to democratic principles. Failure to do so could result in a fractured party, a compromised convention, and a weakened opposition, with significant consequences for Nigeria’s democratic evolution. The plaintiffs’ efforts to meticulously document their claims and seek redress through the courts highlight a desire for accountability and adherence to established rules, a positive sign for democratic practice even within the context of internal party conflict.
Conclusion
The Federal High Court’s adjournment of the suit seeking to halt the PDP convention, driven by a contentious dispute over legal representation between two Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Chris Uche and Kamaldeen Ajibade, underscores the profound internal strife plaguing the Peoples Democratic Party. This legal impasse, stemming from conflicting claims of authority—one based on the National Chairman’s instruction and the other on the National Legal Adviser’s constitutional role—has effectively paralyzed the party’s ability to proceed with its crucial national convention, scheduled for November 15-16, 2025. The plaintiffs, consisting of state chairmen and zonal officers, have lodged a serious challenge, alleging that the planned convention violates the PDP Constitution and electoral laws, arguing that they have been unfairly sidelined despite their positions and aspirations to contest leadership roles. Their plea for the court to maintain the status quo and prevent INEC from monitoring the exercise highlights their deep-seated concerns about the legitimacy and democratic integrity of the convention process. The judge’s decision to grant the PDP an opportunity to resolve its internal differences before resuming proceedings emphasizes the court’s recognition of the need for internal party harmony to facilitate legal processes, while also issuing a stern warning against further delays that could render judicial processes nugatory. The subsequent joinder applications by key party figures, including the National Chairman, further complicate the legal landscape, indicating a broader engagement of various factions within the unfolding dispute. Ultimately, the resolution of this multifaceted legal battle hinges on the PDP’s capacity to address its internal governance deficits and demonstrate a commitment to democratic principles, failing which the party risks further fragmentation, a compromised convention, and a weakened position in Nigeria’s political arena.
