Court bars Turaki faction from PDP secretariat

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja has restrained the Kabiru Turaki-led National Working Committee (NWC) from accessing the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) national secretariat in the capital.

The ruling was delivered in a suit filed by a faction of the party aligned with the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike.

In addition, the court directed security agencies, including the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) and the Department of State Services (DSS), to provide adequate protection to the faction led by Abdulrahman Mohammed in accessing the secretariat.

Justice Abdulmalik held that the purported national convention organised by the Turaki-led group on 15 and 16 November 2025 in Ibadan, along with the election of party officials, was invalid, having been conducted in defiance of subsisting court orders.

She ruled that the exercise breached Section 287(3) of the Nigerian Constitution (as amended) and contravened the PDP’s constitution.

The court also described the expulsion of Nyesom Wike and his allies from the party at the said convention as a violation of judicial authority.

“I considered the expulsion of the members of the plaintiffs as not only an affront to the subsisting judgment, but also a direct assault on a democratic and principled society,” the judge said.

According to the ruling, all decisions, resolutions and actions taken at the convention, including the suspension of members, are unconstitutional, unlawful and of no effect.

The plaintiffs had sought, among other reliefs, to prevent security agencies from granting the Turaki-led faction access to the party secretariat and to restrain INEC from recognising any alternative office address submitted by that group.

The court granted the declaratory and injunctive reliefs, affirming that the Wike-aligned faction remains entitled to occupy the party’s offices and utilise its properties.

Justice Abdulmalik also dismissed an application by the Turaki faction seeking her recusal, stating that no credible evidence of bias had been presented. She emphasised that allegations of bias must be substantiated with concrete proof rather than mere suspicion.

She further held that dissatisfaction with court rulings should be addressed through the appeal process, not by requesting that a judge withdraw from a case.

On objections challenging the court’s jurisdiction and the competence of the suit, the judge ruled that the matter involved constitutional interpretation and enforcement, thereby falling within the court’s authority.

Consequently, she dismissed all applications filed by the defendants for lacking merit.