A senior figure within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Umar Sani, has faulted the Federal High Court judgment that voided the party’s National Convention held in Ibadan, describing the decision as a clear case of judicial excess and misuse of authority.
Reacting via a statement shared on his verified X account on Tuesday, the 3rd of February, 2026, Sani said the ruling by Justice Uche Agomoh of the Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan has triggered far-reaching legal and institutional concerns that extend beyond the internal disagreements currently facing the PDP.
According to him, the verdict has further amplified worries about the increasing belief that the Federal High Court may be susceptible to external pressures, a trend he said poses a threat to judicial integrity.
Sani argued that the court went beyond the scope of the issues presented to it, noting that when the matter was initiated and argued, the question of setting up a National Caretaker Committee was not in existence and was never contemplated by any of the parties.
He maintained that the issue was neither canvassed by the litigants nor included among the reliefs sought, insisting that by making pronouncements on the validity of a caretaker committee that was non-existent at the time, the court effectively awarded reliefs that were not requested.
“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.
READ ALSO: PDP Faction Vows Justice After Ibadan Court Win
“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,” he argued.