A Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgement of the apex court on the leadership tussle in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has revealed how the faction loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, lost out in the battle for the party’s soul.

But in a swift reaction, the Abdulrahman Mohammed leadership of the party said that the purported CTC of the recent Supreme Court judgement is not officially released. He also insisted that the Supreme Court judgement recognised him as PDP National Chairman and Senator Samuel Anyanwu as the National Secretary.

According to the CTC sighted by THISDAY yesterday, the apex court unanimously dismissed the cross appeal brought by Wike, alongside the main appeal by the Tanimu Turaki-led faction said to be loyal to the Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde.

“The Cross-Appeal is in the circumstance of the Main Appeal, dismissed.

“Cross-Appeal Dismissed,” Justice Stephen Adah, held in the CTC, which was released to the public barely one week of the judgement.

It would be recalled that the Makinde faction had emerged from the party’s convention held last November in Ibadan with Turaki as National Chairman, while the Wike faction emerged from the March convention in Abuja, with Abdulrahman Mohammed as National Chairman.

Following the March 9 judgement of the Court of Appeal which nullified the Ibadan convention, on grounds that the convention held in flagrant disobedience of the orders of the Federal High Court, Abuja, the Turaki leadership had approached the apex court to set aside the judgement of the lower court on grounds among others that the appellate court erred in law when it agreed with the Federal High Court, Abuja, that the case before it was outside the internal affairs of political parties and hence the court has jurisdiction to intervene.

But, it was not only the Turaki faction that has problem with the judgement of the appellate court, taking into cognizance the cross appeal filed by the Wike faction.

The cross appeal specifically set out to reverse the unanimous judgement of the Court of Appeal, which on March 9, affirmed the suspension of the party’s Legal Adviser, Kamaldeen Ajibade, SAN.

The Turaki faction had approached the appellate court to challenge the judgement of Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which on October 31, 2025, restrained the PDP from proceeding with the convention slated for November 15 and 16, 2025, until it conduct proper congresses in areas congress was allegedly not held, as well as another judgement of Justice Peter Lifu, which on November 14, barred the PDP from conducting the said convention until an aspirant, the former governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido, was allowed to purchase nomination form and participate in the convention.

At the hearing of the appeal, Ajibade who was recognised by Justice Omotosho as the legal representative of the PDP at the trial court had objected to Chief Chris Uche, SAN representing the PDP, insisting he is the one clothed with legal authority to represent the PDP at the appeal.

However, his objection was dismissed on account of his suspension from the PDP. “By leave of this Court, the appellant placed before the Court as fresh evidence the Notice evidencing the suspension of A.K. Ajibade, SAN as National Legal Adviser of the appellant on November 1, 2025. That evidence was duly admitted pursuant to the principles governing reception of fresh evidence on appeal as restated by the Supreme Court.

“The legal effect of that fresh evidence is that, as at December 10, 2025 when Appeal No. CA/ABJ/1728/2025 was purportedly filed by A.K. Ajibade, SAN, he had ceased to hold the office of National Legal Adviser of the appellant. An agent whose authority has been lawfully terminated cannot bind the principal.

“Accordingly, any process filed in the name of the appellant by a person who had ceased to possess the authority to act on its behalf is incompetent,” the appellate court had held.

Wike’s faction in its bid to prevent an alleged vacuum at the expiration of the tenure of the Ambassador Iliya Damagun-led PDP had inaugurated a national caretaker committee led by Abdulrahman Mohammed as chairman and Senator Samuel Anyanwu as Secretary.

Anyanwu as scribe of the PDP played a crucial and constitutional role in the appointment of Abdulrahman Mohammed as Acting National Chairman of a faction of the PDP, and was also a member of the National Caretaker Working Committee that organised the March 28 and 29 National Convention, that produced the current national officers of PDP, said to be loyal to the FCT, Wike.

Specifically, Anyanwu had signed the letter to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) appointing Abdulrahman Mohammed as acting National Chairman on November 3, 2025, while under suspension.

Therefore, going by the appellate court’s judgement which voided all actions taken by Ajibade under suspension, it implies that the inauguration of the caretaker committee as well as March convention in Abuja which produced the Mohammed-led leadership is a nullity because Anyanwu lacked the legal authority to undertook all those actions while his suspension subsists.

Since, the apex court dismissed the appeal by the Wike faction, it simply means that the appellate court judgement affirming Ajibade’s suspension and by extension that of Anyanwu, National Organising Secretary, Bature Umar and National Auditor, Okechukwu Osuoha from the PDP subsists.

Anyanwu’s suspension and subsequent expulsion from the PDP is pending, at the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal. Anyanwu in the Notice of Appeal filed on April 10, 2026 by his lawyer, K. C. O. Njemanze, SAN, is praying the appellate court to set aside the judgement of the lower court and annul the recommended expulsion from the party.

In the nine grounds notice of appeal, Anyanwu argued that Justice Halilu erred in law when he held and declared that, “the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the internal remedies provided by the PDP constitution rendered his suit premature and incompetent, “and the jurisdiction of this court is thereby ousted.”

In another ground, the appellant submitted that the trial court erred when it when it held that the plaintiff’s claims do not fall within any recognised exception, adding that, “claimant invites the court to determine the propriety of acts undertaken by an organ of a political party pursuant to its constitution. This court cannot do that.”

Amongst the reliefs sought include an order allowing the appeal, set aside the order of the lower court striking out plaintiff’s suit and, “to enter judgment in favour of the appellant”.

The Chief Ikimi seven-member Committee had on March 10, 2025 recommended the expulsion of Senator Anyanwu from the PDP for anti-party activities following findings arising from petitions by some party members. The NDC Report indicated that Anyanwu declined to appear before the committee.

Displeased, Anyanwu had instituted legal action against the NDC and the former NWC led by Ambassador Iliya Umar Damagun at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

In the suit marked: CV/1050/2025, Anyanwu had prayed the court to set aside the findings, decision and recommendation of the Committee on the ground that it lacked competence to determine allegations made against him.

He further urged the court to invalidate the decision of the committee claiming that it constituted a violation of his fundamental right to fair hearing under the constitution of the PDP.

But, the court in its verdict dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction on the ground that Anyanwu’s claims are non-justiciable intra-party disputes while also affirming that they lacked merit.

The judge held that, “a careful examination of the Originating Summons, the affidavit in support thereof and the documentary exhibits relied upon by the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff failed to establish any basis upon which this Court can interfere with the disciplinary proceedings of the 2nd defendant.

“The evidence before the court discloses that the plaintiff was duly invited to appear before the National Disciplinary Committee of the 2nd defendant but failed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded him. It is settled in law that a party who deliberately refuses or neglects to utilise an opportunity to be heard cannot subsequently complain of denial of fair hearing.

“Furthermore, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the National Disciplinary Committee acted outside the powers conferred on it by the Constitution of the 2nd defendant nor did he show that the procedures adopted were fundamentally defective or in breach of natural justice. Courts do not act as appellate bodies over the internal disciplinary mechanism of voluntary associations, once the procedure adopted substantially complies with the rules governing such bodies.

“The plaintiff, having alleged illegality, bias and unconstitutionally failed to place sufficient material before this court to justify the extraordinary intervention of the Court in the internal affairs of the 2nd defendant,” the Court held.

The apex court had in a split decision of three-to-two voided the convention that produced the Turaki-led faction on the grounds that it was conducted in blatant disobedience of a valid court order.

Justice Stephen Adah, who delivered the lead majority judgement disclosed that upon their perusal of the record of appeal, the apex court found the issue of disobedience which was not disputed by any party in the appeal.

According to the apex court, rather than appealing the judgement of the trial court which restrained them from proceeding with the November 15 and 16 National Convention, the appellants “went forum shopping” to get a favourable order from a court of coordinate jurisdiction, and only appeal the judgement after the convention has been held.

While stressing that orders of court remains binding until they are set aside, Justice Adah held that, “when a party refuses to obey the orders of a court, he must not be heard by the court,” adding that this type of abuse of court is unpardonable.

“Accordingly, any litigant who engages in abuse of court process does so at his peril. The court must, in clear and unmistakable terms, condemn such conduct and take decisive steps to preserve the integrity of the judicial system.

“Abuse of court process is not a mere irregularity; it is a fundamental defect that robs the proceedings of legitimacy and renders them liable to summary termination.

“The appellant abused the process of the court to conduct the party Convention.

“The Party Convention of the appellant conducted on November 15 and 26, 2025, in defiance of the subsisting order of the Federal High Court in its judgement delivered on November 14, 2025, in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/2299/20285, is null, void and of no effect and consequence.

“It is accordingly nullified.

“Having resolved the only issue raised against the appellant, the appeal is lacking in merit.

“The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Parties are to bear their respective costs.

“Appeal dismissed.

“The Cross-Appeal is in the circumstance of the decision in the main appeal, dismissed,” the apex court held.

Meanwhile, a statement by Haruna Mohammed Jungudo, the National Publicity Secretary of the PDP, said that the document currently in circulation was not officially released by the Supreme Court.

He said that a careful examination of the purported CTC reveals that it falls short of the established requirements for proper certification of official court documents.

According to Jungudo, “The pages were neither duly certified, stamped, nor signed by any authorised court officer in accordance with legally recognised procedures.”

However, the spokesman of the party said, “assuming without conceding that the said CTC was officially released by the Supreme Court, we make bold to state that the contents of the judgement further affirm the defeat suffered by Kabiru Turaki and others from the Federal High Court up to the Supreme Court.

“The contents of the purported Certified True Copy have conclusively exposed the falsehoods and deliberate misinformation circulated by certain individuals regarding the leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

“Contrary to the misleading narratives being promoted in some sections of the media and political space, the Supreme Court did not suspend Senator Samuel Anyanwu or any member of the party leadership. The apex court also did not direct the PDP Board of Trustees (BoT) to assume control of the party, neither did it declare any vacuum within the party structure.

“We challenge anyone to point to any portion of the judgement where such pronouncements were made.

“The judgement was explicit, clear, and unambiguous. It is therefore disappointing that despite the circulation of the said CTC, some individuals have continued to deliberately distort its contents in pursuit of narrow political interests and personal relevance.

“Those who hurriedly misinterpreted the judgement and misled the public should, by now, acknowledge that their claims were unfounded. Nigerians have now seen the contents of the judgement and can clearly distinguish facts from propaganda.

“What certain individuals continue to promote in the media space is merely the minority opinion contained in the judgment, which upheld the appeal. However, the majority decision of the Supreme Court remains the binding and authoritative judgment of the court,” Jungudo stated.

He stressed further, “we further state that Senator Samuel Anyanwu as party to the suit, did not file any cross-appeal challenging issues relating to suspension or expulsion. In fact, following the dismissal of the main appeal, the Supreme Court held that in such a circumstance, there was no need to delve into the merits of the cross-appeal and accordingly dismissed it.

“It is important to clarify that the cross-appeal merely challenged the locus of Mr. Chris Uche, SAN, to represent the party as legal counsel. The cross-appeal had absolutely nothing to do with any purported suspension or expulsion of any former national officers of the party.

“Nigerians must therefore ask: if truly the judgement was in favour of those now parading themselves as victors, why did Governor Bala Mohammed not remain to contest elections under their so-called Interim National Working Committee but instead move to the Allied Peoples Movement (APM)? Similarly, why is Governor Seyi Makinde not remaining under the leadership structure of Kabiru Tanimu Turaki’s INWC they claim was legally constituted but rather encouraging his supporters as at yesterday to align elsewhere? These actions clearly expose the reality of the situation.”

Jungudo said that the media, as critical stakeholders in democracy, must rise above sensationalism and ensure accurate, balanced, and professional reporting of judicial pronouncements, especially on matters capable of affecting public confidence and political stability. “Public analysts and commentators who issued incorrect interpretations of the Supreme Court ruling should demonstrate integrity by retracting their statements and apologising to the PDP and the Nigerian public.”

Accordingly, Jungudo said, “We call on all patriotic and loyal party members to continue supporting the activities of the party without fear or uncertainty. For the avoidance of doubt, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has not, at any point in time, recognised any persons as leaders of the PDP other than Abdulrahman and Senator Samuel Anyanwu up to this moment.”

The party reassured all aspirants that the PDP will participate in the 2027 General Elections without any legal challenges. (THISDAY)

Update news