The judge rescheduled the case to allow the Wike-aligned faction of the PDP to respond to the motion for stay filed by the Turaki-led faction of the party.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed 23 January to hear an application by the Kabiru Turaki-led faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to stay further proceedings in a suit brought by a rival faction aligned with Nyesom Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory.
Judge Joyce Abdulmalik on Wednesday adjourned the matter to allow the Wike-aligned faction, represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Onyechi Ikpeazu, to respond to the motion for stay filed by the Turaki-led faction of the party.
The Mr Wike-led faction of PDP, through its acting chairperson Mohammed Abdulrahman and factional secretary Samuel Anyanwu had filed the suit on 21 November last year to restrain the Mr Turaki-led group from representing the party and to bar the police and SSS from granting them access to the PDP secretariat in Abuja.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
The development followed separate rulings by Federal High Court judges James Omotosho and Peter Lifu on 31 October and 11 November last year, which initially stopped the PDP from holding its national convention.
Despite the rulings, the Mr Turaki-led faction went ahead to organise the convention in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, between 15 and 16 November 2025, electing its national officers. The Mr Wike-aligned faction rejected the convention as illegitimate and later filed a suit seeking to nullify it.
Chris Uche, also a SAN, representing the Turaki-led PDP faction, told the court that on 5 December 2025 they had applied for the recusal of Judge Abdulmalik from the matter, prompting an adjournment for the plaintiffs to respond.
"Although the judge made an order pending the motion, they (the plantiffs) had filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal (CA/ABJ/CV/1770/2025)," he said.
The defence lawyer further clarified that they had filed an affidavit to notify the judge of the appeal. "Records have been fully transmitted and the plaintiffs are very much aware and have taken steps to file processes in the appeal," he said.
He added that a motion for stay of further proceedings in the suit pending the appeal had also been filed. He argued that once an appeal is entered, the trial court cannot continue with the case, citing the 2021 case of Secondus vs. Ibaochi Alex.
He therefore asked the court to stay proceedings pending the appeal and to adjourn the matter.
Plentiffs disagree
Responding, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Mr Ikpeazu, acknowledged that an appeal had been filed but argued that it does not automatically stay proceedings. He said the nature of the appeal is crucial in deciding whether to continue.
"By virtue of Order 4, Rules 11(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, Sub. 1 provides for a basis for the application they have just made, but Sub. 2 limits the scope of Sub. 1," he said, adding that a stay cannot be granted if the appeal does not affect the subject matter of the suit.
"The bottomline is that the appeal is against the interlocutory decision of my lord," he said, arguing that the court has the inherent power to make an order for parties to stay action while the subject matter is determined.
Mr Ikpeazu further told the court that, under the rules of the Federal High Court, the judge had acted correctly in making the order. He added that the defence had not filed any application to set aside the ruling.
He therefore urged the court to proceed, noting that an earlier order allowed all pending applications to be heard.
When Judge Abdulmalik asked if he had been served with the application for stay, Mr Ikpeazu said he was only served the previous day. He added that he could respond on points of law, and would not need to file any written response.
The judge directed him to file a formal response and adjourned the matter until 23 January for hearing of the motion to stay further proceedings in the suit.
The suit
The Wike-led PDP, including its acting National Chairman Alhaji Mohammed Abdulrahman, and factional National Secretary, Samuel Anyanwu, filed the suit seeking an injunction to restrain the Turaki-led leadership from presenting themselves as PDP officials in any capacity.
They also asked the court to bar the police and the State Security Service (SSS) from granting the Turaki-led group access to the party's national secretariat at Wadara Plaza, Abuja.
The plaintiffs sought to prevent the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising any other office address for the Turaki-led faction apart from the one already on its records.
They further prayed the court to declare that INEC, the police, and the SSS are constitutionally bound to enforce the decisions of the Federal High Court as delivered by Judges James Omotosho and Peter Lifu.
Judge's alleged partisanship
Judge Abdulmalik had earlier granted an ex-parte motion by the plaintiffs, directing that no party take any action pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
In reaction to that ruling, the defendants challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal and filed an application to stay proceedings pending the Appeal Court's decision.
Through their lawyer, Mr Uche, they also filed a motion on notice asking Ms Abdulmalik to recuse herself, arguing that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias in how she had handled the suit.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
They therefore asked the judge to withdraw from the suit and remit the case file to the Chief Judge for reassignment to another judge to determine the matter on its merit.
Mr Uche gave 12 grounds for the application, arguing that the right to a fair hearing, including a right to an impartial tribunal, is guaranteed under the Nigerian constituiton.
He said the fifth to twenty-fifth defendants had formally petitioned the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, requesting that no case concerning PDP's internal affairs be assigned to Judge Abdulmalik or two other judges of the Abuja judicial division, citing past conduct and perceived partisanship.
The lawyer stated that the suit, filed on 21 November last year, was assigned to Judge Abdulmalik, who on 25 November made an ex-parte order against the defendants using a format similar to one previously used by Judge James Omotosho against them.
He argued that, while appearing to refuse the motion on paper, the judge granted broader orders against the defendants, which he said went beyond coincidence.
Mr Uche added that the ex-parte orders, issued without urgency, directly addressed and decided the main substance of the suit at a preliminary stage.
