NJC Distances Itself From PDP Convention Court Order Controversy
The National Judicial Council (NJC) has stated that it has not received any petition concerning the conflicting court orders issued by the Federal High Court in Abuja and the Oyo State High Court over the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) national convention held on Saturday.
The council also absolved judges of blame, insisting that litigants were responsible for the contradictory rulings.
The dispute began on October 31 when Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, ruled in favour of three aggrieved PDP members — Austin Nwachukwu (Imo PDP Chairman), Amah Abraham Nnanna (Abia PDP Chairman), and Turnah Alabh George (PDP Secretary, South-South). The judge barred the party from holding its 2025 national convention in Ibadan and restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from participating.
However, a contrary order emerged from the Oyo State High Court in Ibadan, where Justice Ladiran Akintola granted an ex parte application by Folahan Adelabi, an Oyo PDP member, authorising the convention to proceed and directing INEC to monitor the election of new national officers.
A separate case added to the legal tangle when Justice Peter Lifu of another Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the PDP on November 14 to suspend the convention until former Jigawa State governor, Sule Lamido, was included as a contestant.
Following Justice Akintola’s ruling, three PDP members claimed they had reported the judge to the NJC for issuing a conflicting decision.
But NJC Deputy Director of Information, Kemi Ogedengbe, dismissed the claim, saying the council had received no such petition. She stressed that judges acted based on the cases placed before them, and the inconsistencies were largely the result of litigants pursuing parallel suits.
Ogedengbe explained that the judiciary already has appropriate procedures for addressing unfavourable judgments, noting that aggrieved parties should approach the Court of Appeal rather than file fresh suits before courts of equal jurisdiction.
“When a high court delivers a judgment and a party is dissatisfied, the right thing is to approach the Court of Appeal, not another trial court. The litigants know the proper steps but chose otherwise. How can the NJC query judges when litigants themselves refuse to exercise their rights?” she said.
She added that conflicting rulings naturally produce winners and losers, making it “common sense” for dissatisfied parties to seek redress at the appellate level.
Ogedengbe reiterated that the NJC cannot intervene unless the proper process is followed, emphasising that no petition has been submitted to the council concerning the matter.
