The Court of Appeal in Abuja yesterday reserved judgment in nine appeals filed by the two factions of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) over decisions of the Federal High Court in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
A three-member panel of the appellate court reserved the verdict after lawyers for both sides adopted their briefs and made final submissions. The court stated that the parties would be notified once the judgments are ready.
The appeals challenge rulings by Justices James Omotosho, Joyce Abdulmalik, and Peter Lifu of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court. The two PDP factions, led by the disputed National Chairman Saminu Turaki (SAN) and National Caretaker Committee Chairman Abdulrahman Mohammed, have been embroiled in prolonged litigation over party leadership.
Turaki, elected at the controversial national convention in Ibadan, is contesting the judgment that nullified the exercise and recognized the Mohammed/Anyanwu faction.
Following the rulings, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) invited Mohammed and the party’s National Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, to a meeting with leaders of political parties.
Previously, Justice Omotosho and Justice Lifu had restrained the PDP from holding its Ibadan national convention scheduled for November 15–16, citing the party’s failure to comply with legal requirements.
Justice Omotosho delivered judgment in a suit brought by three aggrieved members—Austin Nwachukwu (Imo PDP chairman), Amah Abraham Nnanna (Abia PDP chairman), and Turnah Alabh George (PDP Secretary, South-South). Justice Lifu ruled on a separate suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido, who alleged he was denied the opportunity to contest the party’s chairmanship.
During yesterday’s proceedings, counsel for the appellants, Chris Uche (SAN), urged the court to allow the appeals and set aside the Federal High Court judgments. Counsel for the respondents, Joseph Daudu (SAN), asked the court to dismiss the appeals and uphold the lower court decisions.
The session, which began shortly after 9 a.m., concluded around 7 p.m., reflecting the volume of appeals, the number of lawyers involved, and the complex issues raised.
