Factional Feud Triggers Legal Standoff as Dual Legal Teams Claim Representation for PDP in Suit Against INEC

A high-stakes legal battle over the leadership structure of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) triggered dramatic scenes and procedural confusion inside a federal courtroom, after two separate legal teams simultaneously announced their appearance to represent the main opposition party. The legal conflict unfolded during the hearing of a suit filed by the Chairman of the PDP Board of Trustees (BoT), Senator Adolphus Wabara, and other key stakeholders against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The litigation follows a recent landmark Supreme Court judgment that nullified the party’s National Convention in Ibadan, which had originally elected a National Working Committee (NWC). In the wake of that ruling, the Wabara-led BoT moved to assume administrative leadership of the party and institute interim management frameworks, an action that has been fiercely rejected by an opposing internal faction loyal to prominent state actors.

When the case was called before the presiding judge, a senior advocate announced his appearance as the duly authorized counsel representing the PDP, acting on instructions from the national leadership aligned with the BoT's post-judgment stabilizing measures.

However, before the court clerk could record the appearance, a second prominent legal team stepped forward, brandishing separate counter-instructions from an opposing faction within the party. The rival lawyers insisted that they held the legitimate mandate from the recognized national organs to manage all ongoing litigation involving the PDP and INEC.

The presence of dual legal representations sparked an immediate debate between the counsels, with each team questioning the constitutional authority of the other to act on behalf of the political institution. The opposing sides traded arguments regarding which executive organ possesses the legal backing to hire external legal representation under the current, highly fractured party constitution.

Faced with the structural deadlock and conflicting notices of appearance, the trial judge expressed deep dissatisfaction with the internal disorder being imported into the judicial process. The court noted that a single corporate or political entity cannot speak with two distinct voices within the same legal proceeding.

Consequently, the judge adjourned the matter to a later date, directing both legal teams to return to their respective party factions and resolve the representation conflict administratively, warning that the court would not serve as a battleground for internal party squabbles.