PDP Leadership Crisis: Appeal Court Rejects Challenge to Decision Recognizing Wike‑Led Caretaker Committee

Alex Enumah in Abuja

The Court of Appeal in Abuja declined to hear an appeal against a Federal High Court ruling in Ibadan that recognised the Caretaker Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) loyal to Federal Capital Territory Minister Mr Nyesom Wike. The appellate court said the matter had become academic.

In a unanimous decision on Wednesday, the three‑member panel held that no party would benefit from the appeal because the issue was tied to the November 2025 PDP convention, which had already been resolved by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Justice Uche Ogomoh of the Federal High Court in Ibadan had nullified the PDP convention held on 15 and 16 November that produced the Tanimu Turaki‑led faction, ruling that it violated court orders. He then recognised the Caretaker Committee led by Abdulrahman Mohammed as the legitimate leadership of the PDP.

Displeased with this decision, the Turaki‑led faction sought to overturn the judgment in the lower court. Mohammed, Secretary of the National Caretaker Committee Senator Samuel Anyanwu, and Chairman of the factional Board of Trustees Mao Ohuabuwa filed an application asking the appellate court to dismiss the appeal as academic, arguing that the Supreme Court had already settled the party’s leadership dispute.

The Turaki faction countered that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had not addressed the caretaker committee, claiming it was a “live issue” before the appellate court. They argued that the trial court had exceeded its powers by affirming the Mohammed‑led PDP without any party having sought such recognition before Justice Ogomoh.

In its ruling on Wednesday, the appellate court held that because the live issue was connected to the nullified November convention, the appeal was academic and could not be adjudicated.

In a Certified True Copy of the ruling obtained by THISDAY yesterday, Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam, who delivered the lead judgment, noted that the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought by the appeal hinged on the legitimacy of the November convention and the leadership bodies purportedly established by it. He stated: “It is contended that this narrow issue was not expressly canvassed or resolved in CA/ABJ/1695/2025 and SC/CV/164/2026, and therefore still requires appellate interrogation.”

“In the instant case, there is a seeming live issue where it is alleged that the trial court went outside the reliefs sought to recognize and uphold a factional caretaker committee; however, from the totality of the record and the uncontroverted grounds of the motion, it is evident that the foundation and substance of this appeal is the challenge to actions and structures that were themselves rooted in, or derived from, the Ibadan Convention of November 15 and 16 2025.”

“The declaratory and injunctive reliefs being pursued on appeal all pivot around the legitimacy of that Convention and the leadership organs purportedly thrown up by, or validated through, it. Therefore, once the Convention itself has been pronounced null, void and of no effect by the Supreme Court, any superstructure erected upon it is necessarily without legal foundation.”

“Issues such as which organ or committee legitimately emerged from, or drew its authority from, that void Convention cannot, in law, give rise to a live controversy requiring further adjudication. As the Supreme Court stated… courts do not act in vacuo or on a foundation that has been legally erased. Accordingly, the alleged live issue is merely superficial, cosmetic as its determination will not avail tangible benefit, relief, nor enforceable right to the Appellant.”

“In effect, to entertain this appeal further would either: (a) lead this Court into revisiting, directly or by indirection, the validity and legal consequences of the Ibadan Convention already settled by CA/ABJ/1695/2025 and SC/CV/164/2026; or (b) require this Court to pronounce on derivative issues which, shorn of the now‑void Convention, have no real or workable legal substratum and cannot alter the legal position now fixed by the Supreme Court.”

“Either course would amount to engaging in an academic exercise, which the law frowns upon.”

“I am therefore satisfied that, in light of the binding decisions in CA/ABIJ/1695/2025 and SC/CV/164/2026, this appeal no longer presents any live issue capable of affecting the rights and obligations of the parties in a practical way. Its continued prosecution would serve no utilitarian purpose and would, on the authorities, constitute an abuse of court process.”

Justice Onyemenam concluded.