The leadership crisis in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) deepened on Friday as the Federal High Court in Abuja struck out a suit seeking the recognition of the Tanimu Turaki-led Interim National Working Committee (INWC), prompting the faction to head for the Court of Appeal.
Justice Salim Olasupo Ibrahim upheld the preliminary objection raised by the defendants and ruled that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter, holding that the dispute bordered on the leadership of the PDP, which is an internal affair of the party.
The suit was filed by the party’s Board of Trustees (BoT) Chairman, Senator Adolphus Wabara, alongside former Niger State Governor Babangida Aliyu, Prof. Jerry Gana, Chief Olabode George, Hajiya Maryam Ciroma, Hajiya Zainab Maina, Dame Esther Uduehi and other founding members.
The plaintiffs had sought, among other reliefs, an order directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise and publish the names of the Turaki-led Interim National Working Committee as the authentic leadership of the party.
In his judgment, Justice Ibrahim held that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to institute the suit on behalf of the PDP and failed to establish that INEC had recognised the purported interim leadership.
The judge also struck out the PDP as a plaintiff, ruling that those who instituted the action did not obtain the party’s authorisation to sue in its name.
Justice Ibrahim further held that the reliefs sought had become academic and would conflict with existing court judgments. He noted that the convention which produced the current party leadership was monitored by INEC, stressing that courts do not decide hypothetical or academic questions.
The court equally held that the suit was incompetent because it was commenced by originating summons despite the contentious nature of the issues before it.
Reacting to the judgment, the Tanimu Turaki-led Interim National Working Committee said it received the decision with respect but expressed strong disagreement with the court’s conclusions, insisting that the ruling was inconsistent with extant decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on similar issues.
