A complex legal confrontation has emerged within Nigeria’s main opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as conflicting court orders from Abuja and Ibadan have thrown its planned national convention into uncertainty — raising fundamental questions about judicial hierarchy, party autonomy, and the enforcement of court injunctions.
Despite an active restraining order from the Federal High Court, Abuja, halting the convention scheduled for November 15–16, 2025, in Ibadan, the PDP leadership under Debo Ologunagba, its National Publicity Secretary, has reaffirmed that the event “will proceed as planned.”
In a press statement on Wednesday, Ologunagba described reports of the convention’s suspension as false and politically motivated, accusing the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of sponsoring misinformation to destabilise the opposition.
“The PDP convention has not been postponed,” he declared. “Delegates are already arriving in Ibadan, and the National Organising Committee is working tirelessly to ensure a successful exercise.”
However, a parallel faction loyal to Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, maintains that the convention stands suspended in obedience to the Abuja court’s directive. Acting National Chairman Alhaji Abdulrahman Muhammed and National Secretary Senator Samuel Anyanwu insist that the party is bound by the rule of law, citing the decision of Justice Omotosho in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/2025, which restrains the PDP from holding the event pending determination of its leadership dispute.
“Having filed an appeal, and in line with our obligation to uphold the law, the PDP hereby suspends the Ibadan National Convention pending the outcome at the Court of Appeal,” Muhammed stated.
The legal dilemma deepened after an Oyo State High Court granted an ex parte order permitting the convention to proceed — directly contradicting the Abuja injunction. While the PDP’s National Working Committee cites the Oyo ruling as its legal cover, legal experts warn that jurisdictional conflict could lead to contempt proceedings if the party proceeds.
Constitutional lawyer and commentator Barr. Ekanem Udo told The Legal Observer that “the Abuja Federal High Court’s decision carries superior weight on matters concerning national institutions like political parties. Proceeding with the convention under an ex parte order risks judicial ridicule and contempt.”
Senator Anyanwu reinforced this position, asserting that the Abuja court’s authority “takes precedence,” and dismissed the Ibadan order as temporary.
“The Oyo order is ex parte and has a seven-day lifespan. Moreover, once an appeal has been filed, all actions are stayed,” he noted.
The dispute has also triggered a security scare. Anyanwu disclosed that the PDP national secretariat in Abuja was temporarily sealed following an attempted attack allegedly by political thugs. A formal petition was sent to the Inspector-General of Police and the DSS seeking protection for party officials and staff.
Observers warn that the legal standoff may undermine the legitimacy of any decisions taken at the Ibadan convention, including the election of new national officers — a crucial step toward repositioning the party ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The case underscores a recurring tension in Nigeria’s multiparty system — the intersection between party autonomy and judicial oversight. With both factions invoking different court orders, the situation now tests the enforcement capacity of the judiciary and the principle of judicial comity — the need for courts of coordinate jurisdiction to avoid issuing contradictory orders.
Legal analysts predict that the Court of Appeal’s decision will determine whether the PDP’s planned convention will stand or be declared null and void. Until then, the opposition party remains caught between political urgency and judicial restraint.
The Legal Observer will continue to track the proceedings at both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal to provide expert analysis on the constitutional ramifications of this intra-party legal dispute
