Court stops PDP convention, orders inclusion of Sule Lamido

Court Stops PDP Convention, Orders Inclusion of Sule Lamido

The unfolding drama within Nigeria’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has taken a decisive turn with the intervention of the Federal High Court in Abuja. On November 14, 2025, Justice Peter Lifu ordered the suspension of the party’s national convention scheduled to hold in Ibadan, Oyo State, on November 15 and 16.

This ruling came in response to a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor, Sule Lamido, who argued that he was unjustly denied the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for the position of National Chairman of the party.

Justice Lifu’s judgment was unequivocal: the PDP had violated its own constitution and internal regulations by excluding Lamido from the contest. The court emphasized that political parties are duty-bound to create opportunities for their members to pursue aspirations, and that Lamido’s exclusion was a breach of fairness and democratic principles. As a consequential order, the judge directed that the convention be put on hold until Lamido is allowed to obtain the nomination form, mobilize supporters, and campaign.

This ruling is not the first of its kind. Just days earlier, on November 11, Justice Lifu had issued a similar injunction restraining the PDP from holding the convention. His stance aligned with an earlier ruling by Justice James Omotosho on October 31, 2025, which also halted the planned convention and restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from participating.

The consistency of these rulings underscores the judiciary’s insistence on upholding internal party democracy.

However, the situation is complicated by a conflicting order from the Oyo State High Court. Justice A. L. Akintola, ruling on an ex parte application filed by a PDP member in Ibadan, permitted the party to proceed with the convention and directed INEC to monitor the election of new national officers. This clash of judicial pronouncements has created uncertainty, leaving the PDP caught between two contradictory legal directives.

At the heart of this dispute lies the broader question of internal democracy within Nigeria’s political parties. Lamido’s insistence on his right to contest reflects a growing demand among party members for transparency and inclusivity in leadership selection.

The judiciary’s intervention highlights the fragility of party structures when internal rules are disregarded, and it raises concerns about the credibility of the PDP’s leadership process if such exclusions are allowed to stand.

The PDP now faces a critical test. Will it comply with the Abuja court’s ruling and allow Lamido to contest, thereby reinforcing its commitment to fairness? Or will it proceed under the Oyo court’s directive, risking f urther legal entanglements and political division? The outcome will not only shape the party’s immediate leadership but also signal its readiness—or lack thereofto embody democratic values in practice.

In the end, this episode is more than a legal battle; it is a litmus test for the PDP’s future. The party must decide whether it will embrace inclusivity and respect for its constitution or continue down a path of internal discord that could weaken its standing in Nigeria’s political landscape.