Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja has barred the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) faction led by Kabiru Turaki from accessing the party’s national secretariat in Abuja.
Delivering judgment in a suit filed by a rival PDP faction loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, the court also directed security agencies, including the Nigeria Police Force and the Department of State Services, to provide protection for the leadership led by Abdulrahman Mohammed in accessing the secretariat.
Justice Abdulmalik declared the PDP national convention held by the Turaki-led faction in Ibadan on November 15–16, 2025, null and void, ruling that it violated existing court orders, Section 287(3) of the Nigerian Constitution, and the party’s constitution. She also voided all decisions taken at the convention, including the election of party officials and the suspension of members.
The court described the expulsion of Wike and his allies as a direct affront to subsisting court judgments and the rule of law. According to the judge, all actions arising from the convention were unconstitutional and of no legal effect.
The suit was instituted by the Abdulrahman-led faction, which sought to prevent the Turaki group from parading itself as the PDP leadership or using the party’s national secretariat at Wadata Plaza, Abuja. The plaintiffs also requested that the Independent National Electoral Commission recognise only the existing party address in its records.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik affirmed that court orders must be obeyed, stressing that the defendants proceeded with the convention despite binding judgments that had not been set aside and were affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
She granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs, declaring that the Turaki-led faction has no legal standing to act on behalf of the PDP.
The court also dismissed applications by the defendants challenging its jurisdiction and seeking the judge’s recusal, ruling that allegations of bias were unsubstantiated and unsupported by credible evidence.
Justice Abdulmalik held that dissatisfaction with judicial decisions is a matter for appeal, not a basis for recusal, and reaffirmed that the court had jurisdiction since the case involved constitutional interpretation and enforcement of prior judgments.
