Former Senate President Bukola Saraki has urged the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to set up a national caretaker committee instead of organising a controversial National Convention that will compound the division in the party.
He said the proposed caretaker committee should instantly embark on reconciliation and unite the platform.
But Chairman of PDP Board of Trustees (BoT) Adulpus Wabara disagreed with Saraki, saying holding the convention would not worsen the situation with the party.
Also yesterday, the Administrator of the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Justice Babatunde Adejumo, declared that there was nothing strange in courts of coordinate jurisdiction giving conflicting orders.
Saraki, in a statement on his verified X handle, said going ahead with the planned convention would not be beneficial to the party and its members nationwide.
The former Kwara State governor said he had made his position known to the reconciliation team set up by the Wabara-led BoT.
Saraki lamented that despite selfless and arduous efforts by some patriotic members, the proposed convention has become mired in extensive controversy.
He warned that political issues are not always settled in court.
The convention scheduled for Ibadan, Oyo State capital, tomorrow and Sunday, is a bone of contention between the two factions, led by National Chairman Ambassador Umar Damagum and Acting National Chairman Abdulrahman Mohammed.
Mohammmed, who belongs to the Wike/Anyanwu faction, has announced the cancellation of the convention, citing the judgment of the Abuja High Court presided over by Justice James Omotosho.
But Damagun, who has insisted that the convention will hold, pointed to the ex-parte order granted by the Ibadan High Court after a motion on notice brought by a party chieftain, Folahan Malomo Adelabi.
Hearing of the case will commence today before Justice Ladiran Akintola, who extended the ex-parte order till today.
However, there was suspense as Justice Peter Lifu of an Abuja Federal High Court failed to deliver judgment in the suit by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido against the PDP.
The former governor had approached the court to stop the convention, claiming that he was denied the nomination form for the national chairmanship contest.
Miffed by the logjam, Wabara noted that PDP suffered from self-inflicted injury.
‘On caretaker committee I stand’
Saraki, who advised the PDP leadership to embrace the option of a caretaker committee, warned that the proposed Ibadan convention would further polarise the party.
He stated: “On 12 November 2025, I had the pleasure to receive members of the BOT Reconciliation Team of our great party, the PDP, led by Wakili Adamawa, Ambassador Hassan Adamu. They requested a meeting in order to seek my opinion on the possible ways of restoring peace within the party.
“It was a meaningful and incisive meeting during which matters of great importance affecting our party were discussed. We deliberated extensively on issues relating to the National Convention scheduled for 15-16 November 2025 in Ibadan.
“In summary, I expressed deep regret that, despite the selfless and arduous efforts by some of us, the convention has become mired in extensive controversy, both political and legal. This does not bode well for not only our party, but for Nigeria’s democracy in general.
“I made it clear to the BOT team that political matters can hardly be resolved through the courts. Affairs of political parties are best resolved amicably with all sides seated around the table. Legal battles will only continue to cause friction.
“As it stands, the fact is that there are conflicting court orders in relation to the validity of the scheduled convention.
“As a result, there is no assurance as to whether the conduct and outcome of the convention will stand.
“As a leader, on whose shoulder lies the political weight of the yearnings and aspirations of my people, I cannot, in all good conscience, take or be part of any action that will jeopardise their aspirations.
“My advice to the BOT team is that the only solution available to us now is for the party to set up a Caretaker Committee to steer the affairs of the party for the time being. This must be done in the next two days.
“This is the path to true reconciliation and stability of the Party. It is also the best way to give confidence to our members who intend to contest elections on the PDP platform.
“In the present circumstance, no serious politician with electoral ambition will seek to contest on the platform of the PDP, not knowing whether his or her nomination will be valid or declared null and void.
“It is clear that going ahead with the National Convention in Ibadan on 15-16 November 2025 will only serve to further fuel the present crisis.
“Therefore, going ahead with the Convention as scheduled is a waste of effort. It does not have my support. It’s not too late to find a win-win solution”
No judgment in Lamido’s case
The Federal High Court in Abuja failed to deliver its judgment scheduled for yesterday in Lamido’s suit.
Justice Lifu had, on November 11, after taking final arguments from lawyers to parties in the suit, adjourned till yesterday for judgment.
When parties got to court, an official of the court announced that the judgment was not ready, adding that parties would be notified when it is ready.
PDP suffering from self-inflicted injuries, says Wabara
Wabara, a former Senate President, said the PDP is battling with self-inflicted injury arising from personal ambitions.
He told reporters after receiving the report of the reconciliation committee set up by the BoT ahead of the Ibadan convention that the process will go ahead, unless it is stopped by the court.
Wabara differed from Saraki on the convention, saying that it would not worsen the crisis in the party.
He said: “All the organs of the party, before these individual opinions, had agreed that we would go to the convention. You know the Governor’s Forum, the NWC, the Board of Trustees, in our last meeting, our communiqué mentioned our going for the convention.
“But if, for any reason, the court of law decides otherwise (we would comply), because we are relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court, which should have guided the lower courts as of now to take a decision. I mean, in a civilised world, these things are interwoven and interconnected.
“You don’t make all kinds of orders when the Supreme Court has deliberated on that. So, you are more or less challenging the Supreme Court of the land. But in Nigeria, anything goes. But as far as the organs of the party are concerned, the convention will hold.
“But if we are stopped by the courts, we are a law-abiding party, we have always been there, we will still get there, then we will probably obey the law, or obey the last order, as the case may be.”
Wabara added: “As far as I am concerned, there is actually no crisis. You know, in politics, it’s a function of interest. Everybody has one or two interests.
“The problem is that there are elective interests, which they have to face up till 2031. So, some people want the party dead now, and then they will resurrect it in 2031 for their use. So we know all these things.
“They don’t believe in democracy or in opposition. Opposition does not mean taking over power. Opposition generally is to guide the ruling party to do the right thing, provided those criticisms are very objective. So that’s what the Board of Trustees is there for. I am not thinking of contesting for anything.
“So, chances are that, naturally, whatever decisions the Board takes under my watch will be something to really keep the party alive. That is why we are there. The secretary, to the best of my knowledge, has no interest in anything other than that the party must survive.
“But some others, we don’t want to mention names, we don’t want to wash our dirty linens. I was a diplomat. So, I don’t talk carelessly. We don’t wash our dirty linens in the open.”
Presenting the report to the BoT, Adamu said the opinion of the stakeholders formed the kernel of the report.
The Secretary to the committee and former Deputy Governor or Edo State, Chief Mike Oghiadomhe, said the assignment was challenging.
“We have weighed the pros and the cons, and our recommendation is based on our desire to present a road map for sustainable and progressive party administration at this point in time,” he said.
‘Conflicting orders from courts not strange’
Justice Adejumo said there was nothing unusual for courts of coordinate jurisdiction to render conflicting decisions on cases with similar facts.
Justice Adejumo, the immediate past President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), said judges give judgments based on their understanding of the law and the facts presented.
He said the controversy generated by such developments is unnecessary because there are always remedies available under the law.
Justice Adejumo said even in what appears as the worst scenario, where two courts in the same jurisdiction give conflicting decisions, that does not mean any wrong has been committed, except it is established that an ulterior motive is involved.
The NJI Administrator spoke in Abuja at a media briefing to herald the 2025 All Nigeria Judges Conference, scheduled for November 17 at the NJI in Abuja
Justice Adejumo, who was reacting to the controversy over the conflicting decisions by two Federal High Courts in Abuja and a High Court in Ibadan on the PDP convention, said no court of coordinate jurisdiction is bound by the decision of another.
He said: “You see, in the Judiciary, respective judges give judgments according to their understanding of the law and the way they see things.
“And, you don’t just give judgment, judgment must be based on the facts as presented to the court and, as provable with credible evidence.
“That is why, even in the United States of America, which is believed to be the oldest democracy, and where they have a judicial system that is superb, they have state courts.
“A court in New York or Washington may deliver a judgment, and another court in Maryland, just a few kilometres away, or New Jersey, very close to New York, may give a different opinion about the same set of facts.
“It depends on the interpretation of the law based on the facts and evidence.”
Justice Adejumo said conflicting judgments by courts of coordinate jurisdiction in Nigeria are not new.
He added: “That is why we have ladders of courts. If two or three courts give conflicting decisions on the same subject matter, the aggrieved party may proceed to the Court of Appeal, which will have a better say.
“If any of the parties is not yet satisfied, it goes to the apex court, which is the final court. And, whatever that court says on that matter settles that issue,” he said.
The NJI Administrator added that courts are established by different statutes and laws, noting that while the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) are established by the laws enacted by the National Assembly, the High Courts of the various states are established by the laws passed by the states’ Assemblies.
He argued that no court is bound to follow the judgment of a coordinate jurisdiction.
Justice Adejumo, however, noted: “It would amount to judicial rascality if, for instance, the Court of Appeal has given judgment on a dispute and a High Court, instead of following the decision of the higher court, now gives a conflicting decision. That will not be acceptable.
“And, if the Supreme Court has spoken, no division of the Court of Appeal would speak differently, except if they are trying to use the canon of Interpretation.
“For instance, if some words are used in the judgment (of the apex court) that are not clear to the lower court, it might interpret them and try to see how they settle the issue.
“So, having conflicting decisions in the Nigerian courts of coordinate jurisdiction is not a new thing. It is allowed.
“But, it would have been better if the laws were amended through their rules of court, to provide that, for you to come to court, seeking redress, you must swear to an affidavit that, to the best of your knowledge, this issue (the subject matter of your case) has not been presented before any court of law.
“And, if it is later discovered that you lied, you are held to be perjuring on oath, and a decision to sentence is provided. So, until that is done, the situation will remain.”
Adejumo said each court has its own jurisdiction, spelt out in the Constitution, adding that the constitutional provisions do not tie any court of coordinate jurisdiction to the apron of another.
He added: “And so, we have the National Judicial Council (NJC). If you believe that the reason behind the conflicting decisions has an ulterior motive, you are free to petition. What will not sound very well is, if it is within the same jurisdiction, for instance, in the FCT.
“If Court A gives a decision on the same set of facts and Court B now gives a different decision on the same facts, that may not be fine enough, but yet the judge (who gave the conflicting decision) has not committed any wrong, because it is the appellate court that will tell us which of the two decisions to follow.
“That is why when Court A says something on a set of facts and Court B says something else in the same set of facts, people will say we are waiting for the decision of the Court of Appeal.
“I think, with my humble view, and with my experience on the Bench for about 30 years; I was a Chief Magistrate, a Deputy Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, I was a High Court judge in Ondo State, and I was the President of the National Industrial Court for 16 and half years, so, I think I have an idea of what adjudication means.”
