TDThe judgment delivered by Justice Uche Agomoh of the Federal High Court, Ibadan, has raised serious legal and institutional questions that go beyond the immediate dispute within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
At its core, the ruling exposes deeper concerns about judicial overreach, abuse of process, and the growing perception that the Federal High Court has become vulnerable to extraneous influences.
First, the judgment ventured into territory that was never placed before the court.
At the time the suit was filed and argued, the issue of constituting a National Caretaker Committee had not arisen.
It was neither an issue joined by the parties nor a relief sought by any of them.
By pronouncing on the legality of a caretaker committee that did not exist when the suit was pending, the court effectively granted relief that was never prayed for.
That amounts to judicial invention.
No counterclaims, ancillary reliefs, or invitations
Second, the matter before the court was narrow and specific.
The sole relief sought was an order of mandamus compelling INEC to list the Turaki-led PDP on its portal.
When the Anyanwu/Wike faction applied to be joined, their position was equally limited; they argued that the prayer should be refused.
No counter-claims, no ancillary reliefs, and no invitation to restructure the party’s leadership were placed before the court.
Yet the judgment went far beyond granting or denying mandamus and delved into internal party administration.
Seeking same reliefs from court of same coordinate jurisdiction
Third, the suit bore all the hallmarks of an abuse of court process.
The same applicants had earlier approached Justice Joyce Abdulmalik seeking identical reliefs.
When the outcome proved unfavourable, an appeal was already filed.
Rather than pursue that appeal to its logical conclusion, the applicants returned through the back door to another Court of coordinate jurisdiction, seeking the same reliefs.
That practice is settled law. It amounts to an invitation to a court to sit on appeal over another court of equal standing.
Such conduct should have been firmly rejected.
Un-justiciable case
More importantly, the subject matter itself is not justiciable.
Party leadership, internal administration, and the management of party organs are, internal affairs.
Courts have consistently held that they should not descend into the arena of party politics.
By doing so in this case, the court blurred the line between judicial review and political management.
Beyond the legal defects lies a wider credibility problem.
Justice Uche, a former associate in the chambers of JB Daudu, SAN, was among the Federal High Court judges whose residences were reportedly raided by the DSS during the Buhari era over allegations of corruption at the bench.
Although initial reports confused the identity of the affected judge, Justice Liman publicly denied any raid on his home and pointed to Justice Agomoh’s residence instead.
These unresolved questions, whether proven or not, inevitably colour public perception.
Conclusion
That perception has been further damaged by a widely circulated video showing the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Tsoho, cap in hand, pleading for land and housing for himself and his colleagues.
In a polity already cynical about institutions, such imagery is devastating.
It feeds the belief that justice is no longer driven by law and merit, but by expectations of favours from judges’ quarters and land allocations linked.
This is why many now say, with bitterness, that cases are not lost because of weak arguments, but because the Federal High Court itself appears compromised.
When judgments read like gifts freely handed out, rather than conclusions earned through legal reasoning, the court risks being seen as Santa Claus, not a temple of justice.
If Justice Uche intended to be an activist judge, the least expected was restraint and fidelity to the issues before her. As it is, the judgment stands on shaky legal ground and remains vulnerable on appeal. This reinforces the growing crisis of confidence in the Federal High Court.
