The Court of Appeal in Abuja has declined to hear an appeal challenging a Federal High Court judgment in Ibadan that recognized the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Caretaker Committee loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr. Nyesom Wike, ruling that the matter has become purely academic.
In a unanimous decision delivered on Wednesday, the three-member appellate panel maintained that no tangible benefit would come to any party involved since the dispute is tied directly to the PDP’s November 2025 national convention, a matter that has already been conclusively settled by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Previously, Justice Uche Ogomoh of the Federal High Court in Ibadan had voided the November 15 and 16 National Convention, which produced a rival faction led by Tanimu Turaki, citing a violation of standing court orders.
Following the nullification, Justice Ogomoh formally recognized the Abdulrahman Mohammed-led Caretaker Committee as the authentic leadership body of the party.
Dissatisfied with that outcome, the Turaki-led faction approached the appellate court to overturn the high court’s decision.
However, Mohammed, alongside the Caretaker Committee’s Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, and the factional Board of Trustees (BOT) Chairman, Mao Ohuabuwa, filed a counter-motion demanding the appeal be thrown out.
They argued that because the Supreme Court has already definitively resolved the party’s leadership crisis, reviewing this specific appeal would be an academic exercise.
In response, the Turaki faction countered that neither the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court had specifically addressed the status of the caretaker committee, rendering it “a live issue” for the appellate court to decide.
They also contended that no party had initially asked Justice Ogomoh to recognize the caretaker committee, asserting that the trial judge acted outside his jurisdiction by validating the Mohammed-led structure.
Ruling on the motion on Wednesday, the appellate court clarified that since this supposedly live issue remains heavily entangled with the nullified November convention, the appeal is entirely academic and beyond further adjudication.
According to a Certified True Copy (CTC) of the ruling obtained by THISDAY, Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam, who authored the lead judgment, observed that the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought in the appeal depend entirely on the legitimacy of the November convention and the leadership organs it established.
Justice Onyemenam noted: “It is contended that this narrow issue was not expressly canvassed or resolved in CA/ABJ/1695/2025 and SC/CV/164/2026, and therefore still requires appellate interrogation.”
Addressing the core of the dispute, the judge stated: “In the instant case, no doubt, there is a seeming live issue where it is heid that the trial court went outside the reliefs sought to recognize and uphold a factional caretaker committee; however, from the totality of the record and the uncontroverted grounds of the motion, it is evident that the foundation and substance of this appeal is the challenge to actions and structures that were themselves rooted in, or derived from, the Ibadan Convention of November 15 and 16, 2025.”
He continued by highlighting the lack of legal grounding: “The declaratory and injunctive reliefs being pursued on appeal all pivot around the legitimacy of that Convention and the leadership organs purportedly thrown up by, or validated through, it. Therefore, once the Convention itself has been pronounced null, void and of no effect by the Supreme Court, any superstructure erected upon it is necessarily without legal foundation. Issues such as which organ or committee legitimately emerged from, or drew its authority from, that void Convention cannot, in law, give rise to a live controversy requiring further adjudication. As the Supreme Court stated …. courts do not act in vacuo or on a foundation that has been legally erased. Accordingly, the alleged live issue is merely superficial, cosmetic as its determination will not avail tangible benefit, relief, nor enforceable right to the Appellant.”
Justice Onyemenam warned that continuing with the case would produce negative procedural outcomes:
“In effect, to entertain this appeal further would either:
(a) Lead this Court into revisiting, directly or by indirection, the validity and legal consequences of the Ibadan Convention already settled by CA/ABJ/1695/2025 and SC/CV/164/2026; or
(b) Require this Court to pronounce on derivative issues which, shorn of the now-void Convention, have no real or workable legal substratum and cannot alter the legal position now fixed by the Supreme Court.
Either course would amount to engaging in an academic exercise, which the law frowns upon.”
Concluding the ruling, Justice Onyemenam held: “I am therefore satisfied that, in light of the binding decisions in CA/ABIJ/1695/2025 and SC/CV/164/2026, this appeal no longer presents any live issue capable of affecting the rights and obligations of the parties in a practical way. Its continued prosecution would serve no utilitarian purpose and would, on the authorities, constitute an abuse of court process.”
