The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal arising from the prolonged legal dispute over the leadership of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), effectively ending the litigation involving the party’s former National Chairman, Shehu Gabam.
Counsel to the SDP, Prince Adewole Adebayo, disclosed this to journalists after the apex court’s judgment.
Adebayo, who is also the SDP presidential candidate for the 2027 election, said the dispute originated from a Federal High Court judgment by Justice Umar, which directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise Gabam.
According to him, the SDP challenged the judgment at the Court of Appeal, which subsequently set it aside.
He said the plaintiff in the original suit then appealed the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court.
Adebayo said the apex court dismissed the appeal after determining that there was no longer a live issue requiring its consideration.
“The Supreme Court said there’s no live issue here, and dismissed the case. So that’s the end of anything to do with Gabam and all of that in SDP,” he said.
He said the judgment had brought to an end the litigation surrounding Gabam’s claim to the party’s leadership.
Adebayo explained that Gabam had already been removed from the party and had not challenged his removal, adding that the original suit was filed by another party member seeking recognition of Gabam.
He said the SDP had approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the Federal High Court judgment and secured an order setting it aside.
“We argued the case that the Court of Appeal should correct that judge, and the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment,” he said.
According to him, the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court had now been dismissed, bringing the litigation over what he described as the party’s past leadership era to an end.
On whether the court imposed any sanction over the prolonged litigation, Adebayo said the SDP did not seek punishment against the opposing parties.
“We don’t want to look like it’s personal. We could have asked for it, but we are too senior now at the Bar to be using the court process to punish anybody,” he said.
Also speaking, SDP National Chairman, Prof. Sadiq Umar Gombe, described the judgment as a victory for the party and democracy.
Gombe said the matter had passed through different stages of litigation before reaching the Supreme Court.
“I think we are happy, and this is victory not only for the SDP, but a victory for democracy,” he said.
He said the party’s repeated appearances before the courts should be viewed within the context of its position on democratic governance.
“Whenever you see SDP at any of the court, either Federal or Court of Appeal or here, we are always here in defence of democracy, not just in defence of SDP as a party,” he said.
Meanwhile, Adebayo disclosed that two other cases involving the SDP and INEC remained before the Supreme Court.
He said the cases concerned the electoral commission’s timetable for political parties, particularly what the SDP considers to be shortened statutory periods for the nomination and substitution of candidates.
- Nigeria traumatised, needs experienced ‘father figure’ like Atiku — ADC
- HURIWA challenges FG over petrol subsidy removal
- WhatsApp to stop working on these 5 iPhones from November 2026 [Full list]
Adebayo said the cases were not filed because the SDP was unable to meet INEC’s timetable, but to seek clarification on the commission’s powers and ensure compliance with the law.
“The reason we brought the case to court is not because we, particularly SDP, are not able to cope with the timetable. It is to limit the abuse of the electoral process by INEC,” he said.
Adebayo maintained that INEC should operate within the powers granted to it by law.
“INEC’s job is to be a servant of democracy and to follow the law as stated,” he said.
He added that the SDP believed ensuring that INEC operated within the law would protect political parties and strengthen confidence in the electoral process.
Adebayo said the party would continue to pursue the remaining cases before the Supreme Court.
