The Court of Appeal has delivered a landmark judgment that could significantly alter the balance of power in the ongoing leadership crisis within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), dealing what many observers describe as a major legal setback to the controversial Caretaker Committee associated with the faction backed by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike.
In a ruling that is already generating intense debate within the opposition party, the appellate court reportedly held that the recognition granted to the PDP Caretaker Committee was never an issue that was properly brought before the Federal High Court, Ibadan, whose judgment had previously been relied upon by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in extending recognition to the committee.
The Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Uchechukwu Onyegbulam, reviewed the circumstances surrounding the Federal High Court judgment and concluded that the substantive matter before the lower court was not the recognition of any caretaker committee.
According to details of the ruling, the primary relief sought by the litigants was an order of mandamus compelling INEC to recognize the outcome of the PDP National Convention held in Ibadan.
However, before the appeal could be fully determined, the Supreme Court had already pronounced on the validity of the convention in question, effectively resolving the central issue in dispute.
The appellate court consequently held that the substantive matter had become academic, noting that courts do not ordinarily engage in the determination of issues that have already been settled or overtaken by events.
This aspect of the ruling is significant because it confirms a long-established principle of law that judicial time should not be expended on hypothetical disputes once the controversy giving rise to litigation has ceased to exist.
The Court of Appeal further observed that the trial court failed to adequately address the actual subject matter placed before it by the parties.
Ordinarily, such a finding could warrant an order directing a retrial. However, because the Supreme Court had already resolved the substantive issue surrounding the convention, the appellate court reasoned that ordering a retrial would serve no useful purpose.
Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the judgment relates to the court’s treatment of the Caretaker Committee itself.
The appellate court reportedly held that the issue of recognizing the committee did not arise from the claims and reliefs sought before the Federal High Court.
In effect, the Court of Appeal found that the lower court ventured into matters that were neither pleaded nor canvassed by the parties.
Under established legal principles, courts are generally prohibited from granting reliefs that were not specifically sought or deciding issues that were not submitted for determination.
This finding has been interpreted by supporters of the Kabiru Tanimu Turaki-led faction as striking at the legal foundation upon which INEC’s recognition of the Caretaker Committee was built.
The judgment also reportedly affirmed the suspension of A.K. Ajibade and held that he lacked the authority to act on behalf of the party.
Political observers believe this aspect of the ruling could have wider implications for decisions, communications and actions undertaken by party officials whose authority has been questioned during the prolonged internal crisis.
The development is expected to intensify the battle for control of the PDP ahead of future political contests, with rival factions already advancing competing interpretations of the judgment.
Supporters of the Interim National Working Committee led by Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, SAN, argue that the Court of Appeal’s decision has effectively neutralized the legal basis upon which the Caretaker Committee enjoyed recognition.
They insist that INEC should now review its position and accord recognition to what they describe as the properly constituted Interim National Working Committee.
