By Omolola Akinyemi
This article analyzes the PDP convention judgment and explains when a Nigerian court can stop a party convention, drawing from Supreme Court rulings on internal party affairs and statutory compliance.
The recent Federal High Court decision halting the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) national convention has reignited debate over when a court stop party convention in Nigeria. 
While the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that internal party crises are not justiciable, the Abuja court’s intervention in October 2025 shows that statutory non-compliance can open the door to judicial action.
This article examines that tension, focusing on two pivotal cases: the Supreme Court’s ruling in Samuel Anyanwu v. Aniagu Emmanuel (2025) and the High Court’s order stopping the PDP’s November 15–16, 2025, convention.
The Supreme Court’s Stand on Internal Party Affairs
In Samuel Anyanwu & Ors v. Aniagu Emmanuel & Ors (SC/CV/18/2025), delivered in March 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria reaffirmed a longstanding doctrine — courts have no jurisdiction over the internal leadership disputes of political parties.
Senator Anyanwu, the then National Secretary of the PDP, had been removed from his position by a faction within the party. He approached the Federal High Court, which ruled against him.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. But the Supreme Court overturned both rulings, declaring the entire dispute a non-justiciable internal affair.
Justice Jamilu Tukur, delivering the lead judgment, emphasized that political parties are voluntary associations governed by their own constitutions. Courts, he said, “cannot dabble into internal matters such as leadership struggles or office appointments within political parties.”
The Court held that Anyanwu lacked locus standi because he had not demonstrated a personal legal injury. More importantly, it ruled that such disputes fall outside the jurisdiction granted to Nigerian courts by the Constitution.
This decision solidified an important principle: courts cannot stop party activities that arise purely from internal leadership quarrels or factional power struggles.
Exceptions to the Rule: When Courts May Intervene
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling did not close the door entirely. It carved out clear exceptions — circumstances where a court may legally intervene in what appears to be a party dispute. These include:
Violation of Statutory Provisions: Where a political party breaches external laws, such as the Electoral Act 2022 or INEC guidelines.
Breach of Party Constitution Affecting Rights: When a party’s actions violate its constitution in a way that infringes on a member’s right.
Fraud or Criminal Misconduct: When internal acts involve fraud, forgery, or illegal manipulation of processes.
Constitutional or Public Law Implications: When party conduct undermines broader public or constitutional obligations.
Thus, while the Supreme Court shields internal party affairs from judicial interference, it allows intervention where a party acts contrary to statutory or constitutional duties.
The PDP Convention Case: Judicial Oversight in Action
On October 31, 2025, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, issued an order stopping the PDP’s planned national convention scheduled for November 15–16 in Ibadan.
The order followed a suit filed by PDP members who alleged that the party’s leadership violated its constitution and the Electoral Act 2022. Their key claims were:
The PDP failed to conduct valid state congresses in at least 14 states.
The party failed to issue the mandatory 21-day notice to members and to INEC before the convention.
The delegate lists were allegedly manipulated and lacked legal authenticity.
In his ruling, Justice Omotosho agreed that these alleged acts went beyond internal squabbles and entered the domain of statutory breach.
He ruled that the case “is not about the internal affairs of the PDP but about compliance with the law regulating party conventions.”
The court therefore restrained the PDP and INEC from proceeding with or recognizing the convention until full legal compliance was shown.
This landmark order demonstrates how Nigerian courts can — and sometimes must — step in when political parties ignore statutory obligations. It is not a contradiction of the Supreme Court’s doctrine but an enforcement of the exceptions it permits.
Reconciling the Two Doctrines
At first glance, the Supreme Court’s decision in Anyanwu v. Aniagu and the High Court’s order against the PDP appear to pull in opposite directions. But legally, they are complementary.
In Anyanwu, the issue was purely internal — who should occupy the position of National Secretary. The court declined jurisdiction.
In the PDP convention case, the issue was procedural illegality — failure to comply with statutory provisions of the Electoral Act and the PDP’s own constitution. The court therefore acted within its power.
The line is clear: a court cannot stop a party convention because of internal crisis, but it can stop one because of legal violations.
This balance preserves both party autonomy and the rule of law.
Implications for Political Parties
Strict Compliance Is Essential
Political parties must ensure that all congresses, conventions, and internal elections comply with their constitutions, the Electoral Act 2022, and INEC guidelines. Any procedural shortcut can render their activities void and expose them to injunctions.
Notices and Documentation Matter
Failure to issue proper notices, prepare delegate lists transparently, or conduct valid state congresses can provide legal grounds for aggrieved members to seek judicial intervention.
Internal Crisis Alone Is Not Enough
Members who seek to use the court to settle political scores without a statutory breach will fail. The judiciary is now more willing to dismiss such cases for lack of jurisdiction.
Parties Are Public Institutions
Though private in formation, political parties perform public functions in Nigeria’s democratic system. This means they cannot hide behind “internal affairs” when they break the law.
Implications for the Judiciary
The courts must continue to walk a fine line between protecting party autonomy and enforcing compliance with law. While they must avoid becoming arbiters of political infighting, they retain a constitutional duty to uphold legality and due process.
Future courts will likely apply the PDP convention judgment as a reference point, distinguishing between internal disputes (non-justiciable) and statutory breaches (justiciable).
Final thoughts
The question of whether a court stop party convention boils down to one issue: the nature of the grievance. If the dispute is a leadership or factional crisis, the courts will not intervene. But if the party violates the law — by ignoring the Electoral Act, failing to give proper notice, or breaching its constitution — a court may rightly step in and stop the convention.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Anyanwu v. Aniagu and the Federal High Court’s 2025 judgment against the PDP represent two sides of the same legal coin: one defines the limits of judicial restraint, the other affirms the power of judicial enforcement.
For political parties, the message is simple — comply with the law, or risk judicial intervention.
References:
Samuel Anyanwu & Ors v. Aniagu Emmanuel & Ors (SC/CV/18/2025) — Supreme Court of Nigeria, March 2025.
Federal High Court (Abuja), Order Halting PDP National Convention, October 2025.
Electoral Act 2022 (Nigeria).
Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244; Lado v. CPC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 689.
