Supreme Court Upholds Nullification of Party Convention, Dismisses Appeals

The Supreme Court has upheld earlier decisions nullifying a disputed party convention, reaffirming that any exercise conducted in violation of valid court orders is legally void and cannot stand.
Delivering its position on the matter, the apex court maintained that the convention was held contrary to existing judicial directives, and therefore lacked any legal foundation. The court stressed the binding nature of court orders, noting that “no action carried out in disobedience of a valid court order can be accorded recognition in law.”
The ruling also affirmed the earlier judgments of both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, which had separately restrained and later invalidated the convention over alleged breaches of party guidelines, unresolved internal disputes from state congresses, and complaints that some aspirants were excluded from participation.
The Federal High Court had initially halted the exercise, citing irregularities and procedural violations within the party’s internal electoral processes. The Court of Appeal subsequently agreed, holding that the convention failed to meet the requirements of due process and could not be validated.
Despite these rulings, the faction led by Senator Abdul-Aziz Turaki proceeded to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the lower court decisions and restore recognition of both the convention and its outcome. The apex court, however, dismissed the appeal in its entirety, holding that the applicants had failed to demonstrate any legal basis to set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
In a strongly worded aspect of its judgment, the Supreme Court faulted the appellants for continuing actions in breach of subsisting court orders while simultaneously seeking judicial relief. The court held that such conduct amounted to an abuse of judicial process and undermined the integrity of the legal system.
The justices further observed that litigants must follow proper appellate procedure rather than seeking parallel or conflicting orders from courts of coordinate jurisdiction. The court reiterated that the judiciary cannot be used to validate actions already declared unlawful.
In a related ruling, the Supreme Court also dismissed a second appeal filed by the same faction, again reinforcing the principle that parties in breach of court orders cannot seek equitable relief while still in disobedience. The decision was reached by a narrow margin of three justices in favour and two in dissent.
No full verbatim transcript of the judgment was released at the time of reporting, but the court’s position was clear in affirming that the contested convention “remains a nullity in the eyes of the law” due to its non-compliance with binding judicial directives.