Confusion Rocks PDP Leadership Suit as Two Senior Lawyers Clash Over Party Representation in Court

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Friday witnessed a dramatic twist in the ongoing leadership dispute within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) after two Senior Advocates of Nigeria separately laid claim to representing the party in the same case.

The development occurred during proceedings in a suit instituted by the PDP Board of Trustees (BoT) against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), seeking judicial recognition of an interim National Working Committee (NWC) allegedly constituted by the party.

The case, presided over by Justice Salim Ibrahim, centres on a request for the court to compel INEC to formally acknowledge and publish on its official records the names of members of the interim NWC headed by Kabiru Tanimu Turaki.

The plaintiffs, comprising the PDP and several prominent members of its Board of Trustees, contend that the interim leadership was duly approved by the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) and communicated to the electoral commission through official correspondence dated May 4.

Among the notable figures listed as plaintiffs in the suit are former Senate President Adolphus Wabara, former Niger State Governor Muazu Babangida Aliyu, former Information Minister Jerry Gana, and PDP chieftain Olabode George.

Also joined in the legal action are former Ministers of Women Affairs, Maryam Ciroma and Zainab Maina, as well as BoT and NEC member Esther Uduehi. The PDP itself is listed as the eighth plaintiff, while INEC is the sole defendant in the matter.

However, what was expected to be a routine hearing quickly turned contentious when senior lawyer Gordy Uche (SAN) announced his appearance on behalf of all eight plaintiffs, including the PDP.

Moments later, another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Sunday Ameh, rose to inform the court that he was representing the PDP, creating uncertainty over who had the legal authority to act for the party.

The conflicting claims triggered confusion in the courtroom and exposed the lingering internal divisions within the opposition party. Observers noted visible tension as both legal teams sought recognition, forcing the court to confront the issue of proper representation before proceeding with the substantive matter.

Faced with the dispute, Justice Ibrahim declined to delve into the merits of the case and instead focused on resolving the preliminary question of who is legally empowered to represent the PDP in the proceedings.

Following arguments from the parties, the judge adjourned the matter until June 30, when the court is expected to deliver a ruling on the issue of representation and determine the proper parties entitled to appear on behalf of the PDP.

The outcome of the ruling is likely to have significant implications for the party’s ongoing leadership crisis and its efforts to secure judicial backing for the Turaki-led interim National Working Committee.

Political observers say the disagreement over legal representation underscores the deepening power struggle within the PDP, with rival factions continuing to battle for control of the party’s structure ahead of future political contests.

Until the court settles the representation dispute, the substantive request seeking INEC’s recognition of the interim leadership remains on hold.