A chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party, Umar Sani, on Tuesday, described the ruling of the Federal High Court nullification of the party’s National Convention in Ibadan, Oyo State as an abuse of power and judicial overreach.
Sani in a statement posted on his verified X handle, said the judgment delivered by Justice Uche Agomoh of the Federal High Court, Ibadan, has raised serious legal and institutional questions that go beyond the immediate dispute within the PDP.
Sani said the ruling exposes deeper concerns about the growing perception that the Federal High Court has become vulnerable to extraneous influences.
He noted that the judgment ventured into territory that was never placed before the court, adding that at the time the suit was filed and argued, the issue of constituting a National Caretaker Committee had not arisen.
The PDP chieftain stressed that it was neither an issue joined by the parties nor a relief sought by any of them, stressing that by pronouncing on the legality of a caretaker committee that did not exist when the suit was pending, the court effectively granted relief that was never prayed for.
The former presidential spokesperson wrote, “The matter before the court was narrow and specific. The sole relief sought was an order of mandamus compelling INEC to list the Turaki-led PDP on its portal.
“When the Anyanwu/Wike faction applied to be joined, their position was equally limited they argued that the prayer should be refused. No counter-claims, no ancillary reliefs, and no invitation to restructure the party’s leadership were placed before the court.
“Yet the judgment went far beyond granting or denying mandamus and delved into internal party administration.
“The suit bore all the hallmarks of an abuse of court process. The same applicants had earlier approached Justice Joyce Abdulmalik seeking identical reliefs. When the outcome proved unfavourable, an appeal was already filed.
“Rather than pursue that appeal to its logical conclusion, the applicants returned through the back door to another Court of coordinate jurisdiction, seeking the same reliefs. That practice is settled law. It amounts to an invitation to a court to sit on appeal over another court of equal standing. Such conduct should have been firmly rejected.”
