Court Fixes Date To Hear Turaki-Led PDP’s Motion For Stay Of Proceedings.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed January 23 for the hearing of an application seeking a stay of further proceedings filed by the Kabiru Turaki-led faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in a leadership dispute involving a rival camp aligned with the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned the matter on Wednesday to allow counsel to the plaintiffs, Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, respond formally to the application for stay.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2501/2025, was filed by the Wike-led faction of the PDP, alongside its acting National Chairman, Alhaji Mohammed Abdulrahman, and the factional National Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction restraining the Turaki-led leadership, listed as the 5th to 25th defendants, from presenting themselves as officials or representatives of the party in any capacity.

They also urged the court to restrain the police and the Department of State Services from granting the Turaki-led group access to the party’s national secretariat at Wadata Plaza, Abuja.

In addition, the plaintiffs asked the court to stop the Independent National Electoral Commission from recognising or accepting any address submitted by the Turaki-led faction as the PDP’s official office address, aside from the one already recorded by the commission.

The plaintiffs further requested a declaration that INEC, the police and the DSS are constitutionally bound to enforce and give full effect to earlier judgments and rulings delivered by Justices James Omotosho and Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court.

Justice Abdulmalik had earlier granted an ex parte order directing all parties to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

Dissatisfied with the order, the Turaki-led faction appealed the decision at the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal and also filed an application asking the trial court to stay further proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.

Through their lawyer, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, the Turaki-led leadership also filed a motion on notice requesting Justice Abdulmalik to recuse herself from the case, citing a reasonable apprehension of bias in the handling of the matter.

On December 5, 2025, the court had adjourned the case to January 14 to allow parties regularise their processes and to hear all pending applications alongside the substantive suit.

When proceedings resumed on Wednesday, Ikpeazu informed the court that it had earlier ruled that all pending applications would be taken together with the main suit and that the plaintiffs were ready to proceed.

However, Uche told the court that during the last adjourned date, the defence drew the judge’s attention to their motion for recusal and that the matter was adjourned to allow the plaintiffs respond.

He added that despite the pending motion, the court issued further orders, prompting them to file an appeal, which has now been entered at the Court of Appeal and assigned the number CA/ABJ/CV/1770/2025.

According to him, records of appeal have been fully transmitted and the plaintiffs are aware, having already taken steps to file processes in response.

Uche further disclosed that an affidavit confirming the entry of the appeal had been filed before the court, alongside a motion seeking a stay of further proceedings.

He argued that once an appeal has been entered, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to continue hearing the matter, relying on the 2021 case of Secondus v. Ibaochi Alex to support his position.

He therefore urged the court to stay proceedings and adjourn the matter sine die pending the determination of the appeal.

Responding, Ikpeazu acknowledged the existence of the appeal but argued that the filing of an appeal does not automatically amount to a stay of execution or proceedings.

He contended that the nature of the appeal is critical and cited Order 4, Rule 11(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, noting that a stay cannot be granted where the appeal does not affect the substance of the case.

He maintained that the appeal before the court was against an interlocutory decision and that the trial court retained the inherent power to make interim orders to preserve the subject matter of the suit.

Ikpeazu also argued that the defence had not filed any application to set aside the earlier ruling and urged the court to proceed with the matter as previously directed.

However, Justice Abdulmalik asked whether the plaintiffs had been served with the motion for stay. Ikpeazu replied that service was effected only on Tuesday, adding that while he could respond on points of law, the court insisted on a formal response.

The judge consequently adjourned the matter to January 23 for the hearing of the application seeking an order staying further proceedings.

In the motion on notice, the Turaki-led faction urged Justice Abdulmalik to withdraw from the case and refer the file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment.

Uche argued that the right to fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution includes the right to an impartial tribunal, adding that the defendants had formally petitioned the Chief Judge, requesting that matters relating to PDP internal disputes not be assigned to Justice Abdulmalik and two other judges due to perceived bias in previous cases.

He alleged that although the suit was filed on November 21, 2025, the judge granted ex parte orders on November 25 using what he described as a familiar format similar to earlier rulings against the defendants by another judge.

According to him, the orders granted went beyond the prayers sought and effectively touched on the substantive issues of the suit at an interim stage, despite the absence of any real urgency.