Court declines Lamido’s request to stop PDP convention
by Adenle Ahmed Abiola · The Eagle OnlineThe Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday declined to grant an application filed by former Governor Sule Lamido of Jigawa, seeking an order restraining the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from proceeding with its scheduled national convention.
In a motion ex parte moved by his lawyer, Jeph Njikonye (SAN), he prayed the court to make the interim order pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed alongside.
Justice Peter Lifu, in a ruling, ordered the PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), who are defendants in the suit, to come and show cause why the ex-governor’s reliefs should not be granted.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Lamido, who is the plaintiff in the fresh suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2299/2025, named the PDP and INEC as 1st and 2nd defendants.
In the ex-parte motion dated and filed on October 28, 2025 by his team of lawyers led by Njikonye, the former governor sought two orders:
“An interim order of the honourable court restraining the 1st defendant from conducting its national convention scheduled to hold in Ibadan, Oyo State (or any other place or state) Nov. 15 and Nov. 16 or any other date(s).
“An interim order of court restraining the 2nd defendant (INEC) from monitoring, supervising and recognising the 1st defendant’s national convention.”
- Cybersecurity now vital to emergency response — Fire Service boss
- FCT resident doctors set date to begin indefinite strike
- Police arrest seven suspected kidnappers in Delta, rescue victims
- Court restrains INEC from monitoring, recognising PDP convention
- Anambra alerts against fake portal claiming to offer campaign funds
Giving seven grounds why his application should be considered, Lamido averred that once an action is pending in court, parties are bound to maintain status quo to avoid subjecting the court or the plaintiff to a fait accompli.
The ex-governor said the court has an inherent jurisdiction to preserve the subject matter of litigation.
He said if the PDP is not restrained by the court, the party would be violating its constitution, and by implication denying him the opportunity to contest for the position of the national chairman of the party of which he is eminently qualified to contest.
“The plaintiff/applicant has established a prima facie legal interest in the subject matter of litigation entitling him to the grant of the interim preservative relief sought,” he said.
He said where an action sought to be restrained had already been completed, the equitable remedy of interim injunction may no longer be available to him, “hence why this application is necessary at this stage”.
According to the lawyer, the plaintiff’s suit raises a serious triable issue.
He also averred that balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of the interim preservative reliefs sought.
The matter, which was the only one on Friday’s cause list, was heard in the judge’s chamber.
After Njikonye moved the motion, the judge said it would be necessary to hear from the parties.
He said: “The court has carefully perused and painstakingly considered the motion ex-parte, the affidavits, exhibits and the written address, including the decided cases commended to the court by learned senior advocate.
“I have equally advised myself on the issues raised in the originating summons which of course raises triable issues.”
Justice Lifu said that the court was not also unmindful of the balance of convenience and the undertaking as to damages as held in the three cases cited.
He ruled: “I have also averted my mind to Order 26 Rules, 8(c) of the Rules of this court and the need to exercise my discretion judicially and judiciously.
“Consequently, considering the entire gamut of the entire suit, it is my considered view that Order 26 rule 8(c) of the 2019 Rules of this court be invoked to enable this court to balance the scale and equities of the parties.
“In that wise, the respondents in this suit are herein ordered to show cause within the next 72 hours effective from the date and time of service of this order on them why the prayers of the applicant should not be so granted.”
Justice Lifu adjourned the matter until November 6, 2025 for further proceedings.