The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Thursday delivered two landmark rulings that have intensified the internal crisis within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) while resolving a parallel leadership dispute in the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
In its judgment, the apex court nullified the PDP’s controversial Ibadan convention, a decision that has thrown the party into fresh uncertainty. At the same time, the court affirmed the ADC leadership structure headed by former Senate President David Mark.
The rulings prompted swift reactions within the PDP, as key stakeholders moved to contain the fallout. Governors Seyi Makinde and Bala Mohammed, alongside members of the party’s Board of Trustees and National Executive Committee, convened an emergency closed-door meeting in Abuja.
The meeting, held at Bauchi House in Asokoro, was still ongoing late Thursday at the time of filing this report, underscoring the urgency of the situation within the opposition party.
Court documents reviewed showed that in the ADC matter, the plaintiff had sought orders restraining certain individuals from parading themselves as party officers, occupying the party’s national headquarters, or performing functions tied to disputed positions.
Proceedings indicated that when the ex parte application was first heard on September 4, 2025, the trial court declined to grant the reliefs immediately. Instead, it directed that the respondents be put on notice to show cause why the application should not be granted.
In the lead judgment, Justice Garba held that the lower court acted appropriately, noting that “the interest of justice would be met by putting the other parties on notice.”
An appeal later challenged the trial court’s directive, including its order for parties to maintain the “status quo ante bellum” pending determination of the dispute. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court neither granted nor refused an injunction but merely issued procedural safeguards.
The court further clarified that Section 241(1)(f)(ii) of the Constitution—allowing appeals as of right in interlocutory injunction matters—did not apply, as no substantive injunction had been granted or denied.
Consequently, the apex court held that any appeal in such circumstances required prior leave of court, reinforcing the procedural boundaries governing interlocutory appeals.