Abuja: The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, restrained INEC from monitoring or recognising the outcome of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) ‘s national convention until a chairmanship nomination form is made available to ex-Gov Sule Lamido of Jigawa for purchase.
Justice Peter Lifu, in a judgment, also restrained the PDP from proceeding with its Saturday and Sunday’s national convention until Lamido is allowed to purchase a nomination form for the office of the national chairman of the party.
Justice Lifu held that the PDP, by its conduct, had breached its own party’s guidelines and constitution.
According to Justice Lifu, a party is bound to obey its own constitution.
The judge stated that the PDP’s argument that the instant suit involved the internal affairs of a political party was not persuasive.
“On the issue of internal affairs of a political party, it has been held that where a political party breaches or infringes on its own rules, its constitution and guidelines, that cannot be an internal matter.
“To so hold will mean the court should close its eyes to impunity, illegality, rule of law and rascality.
“This court will be losing its statutory functions when such an approach is adopted, as the law will be meaningless because it will create great danger to man, society and humanity.
“To every law, there is an exception. A breach of a statutory provision appears to fit into the exception,” he said.
According to him, no political party should be allowed to profit from violating its own rules or the national constitution.
Lamido, in the fresh suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2299/2025, initially named the PDP and INEC as the 1st and 2nd defendants.
However, the court joined Austin Nwachukwu (Imo PDP chairman), Amah Nnanna (Abia PDP chairman) and Turnah Alabh George (PDP Secretary, South-South) as the 3rd to 5th defendants, respectively.
The 3rd to 5th defendants were plaintiffs, who had earlier obtained a judgment against PDP on Oct. 31st before Justice James Omotosho.
In the instant suit, Lamido had sought an order of mandatory injunction compelling the PDP to make available to him, for purchase and nomination, the form for election into the office of the national chairman of the party, among others.
The ex-governor contended that if the court did not restrain the PDP, the party would be violating its constitution, and by implication, denying him the opportunity to contest for the position of national chairman of the party, for which he is eminently qualified.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Lifu, citing a previous case, held that the argument of alleged failure of Lamido to explore the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanism would not deprive the court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
“From the facts elicited from the plaintiff’s pleadings, he approached the National Organising Secretary and the Secretary of the 1st defendant on the 27th of October, 2025, to obtain the nomination form for the conduct of the 1st defendant’s national convention.
“Those two national officers turned him down because there were no nomination forms to be given.
“This was the basis for this case as the plaintiff felt cheated and denied the opportunity to participate and contest for the position of chairman of the 1st defendant,” he said.
The judge observed that Article 9(h) of the PDP’s guideline categorically states that, “Nominations at zonal and national levels shall close at least 14 days before the start of the National Convention.”
According to the judge, the plaintiff was denied nomination forms on 27th October, 2025.
“Nomination closes 14 days before the convention. From October 27th, 2025, to the eve of the convention, which is 14th November, 2025, is 19 days, i.e. five days longer than the closing days of 14,” he said.
Besides, Justice Lifu observed that Exhibit PDP-1 attached to the PDP’s consequential amended counter affidavit stated that the sale of nomination forms and expression of interest forms for national offices was to take place between Sept. 3 and Sept. 22, and that the last day of submission of the form was said to be Sept. 26.
“Curiously, Exhibit 6 attached to plaintiff’s counter affidavit to 1st defendant’s affidavit showing cause stated the following:
“Today, being 27th Oct., 2025, is the final day of submission of nomination forms,” he said.
According to the judge, this exhibit contradicts Exhibit PDP-1, which stated September 26th as the last day for submitting forms.
“Furthermore, Exhibit-6 also stated:
“Today is not for selling forms; it is for submission. If anyone went to Wadata House looking for forms, they went to the wrong place.
“We have followed due process and submitted our forms. How we got the form is immaterial; the important thing is that we complied with the party’s guidelines.”
Justice Lifu, who observed that the above quotation came from the camp of the alleged PDP consensus candidate, said this “suggested an irregular, clandestine mode and non-transparent process leading to the selling of forms or collection of the nomination forms meant and kept for special people.”
The judge stated that the PDP never denied the exhibit in its affidavit.
“Convention of a national party is a process commencing from the collection of expressions of interest and nomination forms to the election at the convention.
“Democratic tenets demand consensus building, transparency, dialogue and inclusivity, which, from all indications, is lacking in the build-up to the convention scheduled for the 15th and 16th of November, 2025, in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria.
“In addition to the above, Exhibit PDP-1 has no date on it.
“There is no evidence from available facts before the court that the exhibit, being a Timetable and Schedule of Activity leading to the convention, was never published to members.
“The logo of the 1st defendant is not the one appearing on the exhibit. The motto, featuring the popular words’ Power to the People,’ is not stated or visible anywhere in the exhibit.
“This document or exhibit, to say the least, has no evidential or probative value in law,” he held.
Consequently, Justice Lifu said all three issues raised in the originating summons by the plaintiff were answered in the affirmative.
“On the whole, the case of the plaintiff succeeds and judgment is hereby entered in his favour,” he said.
The judge then declared that the PDP is under an obligation to create opportunities for its members, including Lamido, to serve by putting in place deliberate measures and a conducive atmosphere aimed at enabling any party member who is eligible to contest for any of the party offices, including the position of the national chairman of the party, to realise his aspiration.
He declared that by denying Lamido the opportunity to exercise his constitutional right, the PDP was in breach of its own guidelines and constitution.
Justice Lifu, therefore, made an order compelling the party, before any convention is held, to make available to Lamido for purchase, nomination form for election into the office of the national chairman scheduled for Nov. 15 and Nov. 16 or any other date the party may determine.
He also made a consequential order, directing the PDP to put the convention on hold until Lamido is allowed to obtain the form, mobilise, and campaign for the election in the national convention.
“An order is hereby made prohibiting the 2nd defendant (INEC) from supervising, monitoring or in any manner whatsoever aiding or recognising the 1st defendant’s conduct of election into the office of the national chairman” until Lamido is allowed to participate in the poll.