The Supreme Court has nullified the national convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) held in Ibadan, Oyo State, which produced a factional leadership within the party.
The ruling, delivered on Thursday, April 30, 2026, followed a long legal battle over the legitimacy of the convention conducted on November 15 and 16, 2025. The event had led to the emergence of a parallel national executive headed by Tanimu Turaki.
In a split judgment, three out of five justices of the apex court dismissed the appeal brought by the Turaki-led group, ruling that it lacked merit. The lead judgment, read by Justice Stephen Adah, stated that those behind the convention went ahead in disobedience to an earlier order of the Federal High Court which had stopped the exercise.
The Supreme Court upheld earlier decisions that had already ruled against the convention, confirming that it was carried out against existing court directives. The court maintained that actions taken in violation of valid orders cannot stand in law.
Before the final decision, the convention had faced several challenges in court. A Federal High Court had initially stopped the PDP from holding the gathering due to claims of breaches in party rules, unresolved disputes from state congresses, and complaints that some aspirants were shut out of the process.
Despite this, the convention went ahead, leading to more lawsuits. The Court of Appeal later agreed with the lower court, ruling that the exercise did not follow due process and could not be recognised.
Still dissatisfied, the Turaki faction approached the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn the earlier rulings and validate both the convention and the leadership that emerged from it. However, the apex court rejected the request and affirmed the earlier judgments.
In a related decision, the Supreme Court also dismissed another appeal filed by the same faction. The court ruled that parties who fail to obey court orders cannot seek relief from another court while still in violation.
The justices criticized the group for turning to a court of equal authority to obtain a fresh order instead of properly appealing an earlier ruling. The court described the move as a misuse of the legal process.
This second appeal was also dismissed by a narrow margin, with three justices supporting the decision and two opposing it.
The best is to stop any election to hold in the country rather than this style of using courts to disturb internal party issues.