Umar Sani Calls Court’s Nullification of PDP Ibadan Convention an ‘Abuse of Power

Umar Sani, a PDP chieftain, has characterized the Federal High Court’s decision to declare the party’s National Convention in Ibadan invalid as an abuse of authority and a case of judicial overreach.

“The Federal High Court, Ibadan’s ruling by Justice Uche Agomoh has raised serious legal and institutional questions that go beyond the immediate dispute within the PDP,” Sani said in a statement released on his verified X handle on Tuesday.

According to him, the decision highlights more serious issues about the growing belief that the Federal High Court is now susceptible to outside influences.

At the time the suit was filed and contested, the question of creating a National Caretaker Committee had not come up, he said, adding that the ruling explored ground that had never been brought before the court.

By ruling on the legitimacy of a caretaker committee that did not exist when the lawsuit was pending, the court essentially awarded relief that was never requested, according to the PDP stalwart, who argued that it was neither an issue joined by the parties nor a remedy sought by any of them.

“The court’s case was specific and limited. An order of mandamus requiring INEC to list the Turaki-led PDP on its portal was the only remedy requested.

“The Anyanwu/Wike faction’s attitude was similarly limited when they requested to join; they claimed that the prayer ought to be turned down. The court was not presented with any counterclaims, supplemental reliefs, or requests to reorganize the party’s leadership.

But the ruling probed internal party management and went well beyond simply issuing or refusing mandamus.

“The lawsuit exhibited every sign of a procedural misuse. The same applicants had previously petitioned Justice Joyce Abdulmalik for the same reliefs. An appeal was already made when the result turned out to be unfavorable.

Instead of pursuing that appeal to its logical conclusion, the applicants sought the identical reliefs in another Court of Coordinate Jurisdiction by going back through the back door. It is a settled law practice. In essence, it is an offer for a court to hear an appeal over a court of equal status. “Such behavior ought to have been strongly condemned,” he contended.