The National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, Tanimu Turaki (SAN), has played down the recent judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan, describing it as inconclusive and calling on the Court of Appeal to harmonise all pending cases involving the party.
Turaki made the call on Friday during a media briefing in Abuja, where he disclosed that the party’s National Working Committee had already lodged a Notice of Appeal and filed an application seeking a stay of execution of the judgment.
The Ibadan court had earlier nullified the PDP National Convention held on November 15, 2025, in Oyo State, and barred Turaki and other officials from continuing to function as members of the party’s national leadership.
Ahead of the ruling, PDP governors had thrown their weight behind the Ibadan convention, which produced Turaki and other NWC members for a four-year tenure, a position strongly opposed by the camp of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, which maintained that Abdulrahman and Samuel Anyanwu remained in acting leadership roles.
Although governors oversaw a leadership transition from former chairman Umar Damagum to Turaki before Damagum’s tenure expired on December 9, the faction aligned with the FCT minister constituted a 13-man caretaker committee on December 8 with a 60-day mandate.
Both the governors’ bloc and the opposing faction subsequently approached the Independent National Electoral Commission for official recognition, but the commission declined, citing unresolved internal disputes, thereby triggering several court actions ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Speaking on the judgment, the Turaki-led NWC, through its spokesman Ememobong, said the party had directed its legal team to explore all lawful options, while the rival faction welcomed the ruling restraining the NWC from operating.
Turaki explained that the suit was filed to compel INEC to recognise the Ibadan convention and allow formal communication with the party, adding that the caretaker committee later joined the matter and opposed the reliefs sought.
He criticised the court for granting orders that were not canvassed by any of the parties and maintained that the decision conflicted with existing judgments of courts of equal status, expressing confidence that the appellate court would soon resolve the matter through a consolidated verdict.
