The leadership crisis in the Social Democratic Party (SDP) has taken a new twist after the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment that could affect the future of the party.
For several months, the party has been divided over who the real National Chairman is. One group claimed that Sadiq Abubakar Gombe became the chairman after the alleged suspension of Shehu Gabam. Another group, however, insisted that Gabam is still the rightful leader of the party.
The disagreement caused confusion among party members across the country. From the party’s offices to grassroots supporters, many people were unsure about who was truly in charge. Some members even described the period as a time of serious crisis within the party.
The situation reached a turning point in Abuja when the Court of Appeal reviewed the matter.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Eberechi Suzzette Nyesom-Wike criticised the earlier decision of the lower court which had declared Gombe as the authentic National Chairman of the SDP. She described that decision as “perverse,” meaning the conclusion was not supported by the facts before the court.
The judge explained that leadership disputes in political parties are internal issues that parties should resolve themselves. According to her, courts should not be used to settle such disagreements.
Justice Wike therefore ruled that the lower court did not have the authority to interfere in the dispute involving the alleged suspension of Gabam and the claim that Gombe had taken over as chairman.
The ruling sends a clear message to political parties to follow their own rules and settle internal matters before going to court.
The Court of Appeal also looked at the party’s primary election held in Ado-Ekiti in November 2025.
According to the court, the primary election was held at the wrong venue, which goes against the Electoral Act 2022. The judge noted that the Supreme Court has already ruled in previous cases that party primaries conducted outside approved venues are not valid.
This decision is a major setback for aspirants who spent time and money campaigning during the Ekiti primary election.
However, the court also pointed out that the person who filed the case was not one of the aspirants who took part in the primary election. Because of this, the court said the person did not have the legal right to challenge the process.
