The Federal High Court’s decision to declare the party’s National Convention in Ibadan invalid was characterized by PDP chairman Umar Sani as an abuse of authority and judicial overreach.
Sani said in a statement published on his verified X handle on Tuesday that the Federal High Court, Ibadan, Justice Uche Agomoh’s ruling has brought up important institutional and legal issues that extend beyond the PDP’s current conflict.
He claimed that the decision highlights more serious issues about the increasing belief that the Federal High Court is now susceptible to outside influences.
He said that the ruling went into uncharted terrain for the court, noting that the question of forming a National Caretaker Committee had not been raised at the time the lawsuit was filed and litigated.
By ruling on the legitimacy of a caretaker committee that did not exist when the lawsuit was pending, the court essentially awarded relief that was never prayed for, according to the PDP stalwart, who insisted that it was neither an issue joined by the parties nor a relief requested by any of them.
The court was dealing with a specific and limited issue. An order of mandamus requiring INEC to list the Turaki-led PDP on its portal was the only relief requested.
Their stance was similarly restricted when the Anyanwu/Wike group asked to join; they contended that the prayer ought to be turned down. The court was not presented with any counterclaims, additional reliefs, or invitations to reorganize the party’s leadership.
However, the ruling dug into internal party management and went much beyond simply granting or refusing mandamus.
The lawsuit had every indication of a procedural misuse. Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had previously been contacted by the same applicants, who were asking for the same reliefs. An appeal was already filed when the result turned out to be unfavorable.
The applicants went back through the back door to another Court of Coordinate Jurisdiction, requesting the identical reliefs, instead of following that appeal through to its logical end. It is established law. It is equivalent to a court being invited to hear an appeal against a court of equal standing. He maintained that such behavior ought to have been categorically condemned.
