2027 polls: Supreme Court to determine PDP, ADC fate Thursday

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

The Supreme Court has fixed Thursday for judgment that will shape the fate of both the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the African Democratic Party (ADC) ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The apex court, in notices it sent out on Wednesday, indicated that it would deliver judgments in four separate appeals bordering on the leadership crises that is rocking the two opposition parties.

While the appeals involving the PDP are seeking validation of the outcome of the national convention held in Ibadan, Oyo State, on November 15 and 16, 2025, that of the ADC is challenging the interference of courts in the alleged domestic affairs of the party.

It will be recalled that a five-member panel of the apex court, headed by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, had on April 22 reserved judgment on the cases after all the parties involved adopted their respective briefs of argument.

In one of the appeals marked SC/CV/164/2026, which was by the Tanimu Turaki, SAN-led factional national executives of the PDP, the appellants sought the setting aside of judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court in Abuja, which faulted the conduct of the Ibadan convention.

The appellate court had berated the Turaki-led PDP for defying the November 14, 2025, judgment of Justice Peter Lifu of the high court, which stopped the Ibadan convention.

The high court had specifically barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from supervising, monitoring, or recognising any convention held without including former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido as a contestant.

The restraining order followed a suit filed by Lamido, a foundation member of the PDP, alleging he had been arbitrarily denied the chance to contest for National Chairman.
He cited the PDP and INEC as the first and second defendants, respectively.

The trial court found that Lamido had been unjustly denied a nomination form, contrary to the PDP Constitution and guidelines.
It declared that the party must create opportunities for members to aspire to positions.

As a consequential order, Justice Lifu halted the convention to allow Lamido to obtain the form, mobilize supporters, and campaign.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Turaki-led PDP filed an appeal to set it aside.

The appeal was dismissed by the appellate court which held that the appellants resorted to self-help and contemptuous conduct by proceeding with the convention despite the restraining order.

It ruled that the party should have sought suspension of the judgment from a higher court, rather than obtaining a favourable order from another court of coordinate jurisdiction.

The appellate court described the PDP’s action as a direct affront to judicial authority and a gross abuse of court process.

Meanwhile, the second appeal which was also filed by the Turaki-led group, is seeking to void the court order that barred INEC from monitoring the contentious Ibadan convention.

The appellants in the matter—PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC)—had, in a motion filed on April 8 through their team of lawyers led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, prayed for a departure from the Supreme Court Rules and the abridgement of time for all respondents to file their briefs of argument.

They challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which upheld judgments barring the PDP from proceeding with the Ibadan convention.

The appellate court had held that the convention, which produced the Turaki, SAN-led factional leadership, lacked legal backing as it disobeyed two Federal High Court judgments in Abuja delivered on October 31 and November 14, 2025.

The Justice Mohammed Danjuma-led panel dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/1613/2025, filed by the PDP faction aligned with Governors Seyi Makinde of Oyo State and Bala Mohammed of Bauchi State.

It found no reason to overturn Justice James Omotosho’s verdict of the high court, which had barred INEC from validating the Ibadan convention outcome.

According to the appellate court, evidence showed that statutory conditions precedent were not met before the convention.

found merit in the substantive suit by three aggrieved members—Hon. Austin Nwachukwu (Imo PDP Chairman), Hon. Amah Abraham Nnanna (Abia PDP Chairman), and Turnah Alabh George (PDP Secretary, South-South)—aligned with the Wike faction.

The high court had, in its judgment that precipitated the appeal, faulted the PDP for failing to conduct valid state congresses in 14 states before the convention.

It held that the convention could not proceed without congresses to produce voting delegates for national officers in those states.

The court also noted that notices for the convention were signed only by the National Chairman, excluding the National Secretary, rendering them a nullity.

Justice Omotosho ruled that the PDP’s failure to follow procedures had jeopardised the convention.

Therefore, he directed the party to conduct proper meetings and congresses with 21 days’ statutory notice to INEC for monitoring.

Cited as defendants were INEC; PDP; National Chairman Ambassador Umar Iliya Damagum; National Secretary Senator Samuel Anyanwu; National Organizing Secretary Umar Bature; national officers Ali Odefa and Emmanuel Ogidi; and the PDP’s NWC and NEC.

In the case of the ADC, the apex court will deliver judgment in an appeal marked SC/CV/180/2026, which was filed by Senator David Mark.

The appellant, who leads a faction backed by frontline opposition figures, seeks to set aside a March 12 Court of Appeal judgment, which he said was against the interest of justice.

He argued that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering maintenance of the status quo ante bellum in a suit filed by aggrieved party members led by Nafiu-Bala Gombe.

Mark contended that the dispute involves a political party’s domestic affairs, in which courts lack jurisdiction to intervene.

Besides Gombe, other respondents in the appeal include the ADC, the National Secretary Rauf Aregbesola, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and the immediate past national chairman of the party, Chief Ralph Nwosu.

Mark sought, among other reliefs, an order restraining INEC from recognising anyone other than him and the current national officers, pending determination of the appeal.

He also requested orders barring INEC from altering the party’s leadership structure as currently constituted and staying proceedings in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 before Justice Emeka Nwite at the Federal High Court, Abuja, until the appeal is heard.

While adopting their brief of argument, Mark’s legal team, led by Mr. Jubril Okutepa, SAN, insisted the dispute is a non-justiciable internal party matter, as previously held by the Supreme Court.

Although INEC did not file any process to either support or counter the appeal, however, all the other respondents except Gombe, urged the apex court to allow the appeal.

They maintained that the trial court was properly seized of facts of the case that is still pending before it.

INEC had removed Mark and Aregbesola from its portal and website as ADC National Chairman and Secretary, respectively, on April 1, citing the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

The electoral body said it would, in line with the order for maintenance of the status quo ante bellum, not recognise any of the warring factions until the legal dispute is determined.

However, despite INEC’s action—which the Mark-led faction has asked the Supreme Court to nullify—the ADC vowed to proceed with its scheduled national convention.

Justice Nwite of the Federal High Court had on April 14, adjourned sine die (indefinitely), hearing of the substantive case that Gombe filed to sack the Senator Mark-led leadership of the ADC.

Justice Nwite said he could not proceed with the matter in view of the related issue before the Supreme Court.

He ruled that proceeding would amount to “judicial rascality” while the related appeal pends before the Supreme Court.