Senior figures within Nigeria’s main opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), have rejected claims that a court order has halted its planned National Convention, insisting there is “no legal obstacle” to the event going ahead.
The controversy follows reports suggesting that a legal move had effectively stopped the gathering. But party stakeholders have dismissed those claims as “misleading” and part of what they describe as deliberate attempts to stall the process.
Speaking amid the growing dispute, party members accused unnamed factional interests of spreading misinformation, warning that such actions risk deepening internal divisions at a critical time for the PDP.
They pointed specifically to the timing of a Motion on Notice reportedly filed at the court, arguing it raises questions about intent. According to them, the application was submitted on a Friday — a timing they say makes it unlikely to be heard before the convention concludes.
“By the time the court sits, the matter would already have been overtaken by events,” one stakeholder said, suggesting the legal step would ultimately prove ineffective.
They further stressed that, under Nigerian law, filing a Motion on Notice does not amount to a stay of execution of an existing judgment, including rulings from the Court of Appeal.
Party officials are now urging members and the public to ignore what they describe as unfounded rumours of a court injunction, maintaining that preparations for the convention remain on track.
The PDP has not announced any change to its schedule.
The ongoing controversy surrounding the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) National Convention has taken a new turn, as party stakeholders dismiss claims that a court has halted the scheduled gathering, describing such assertions as misleading and unfounded.
Reacting to the development, party faithful expressed concern over what they termed “a clear departure from reason” by certain factional elements allegedly spreading misinformation about a supposed court injunction stopping the convention.
They argued that the move smacks of desperation, noting that filing a Motion on Notice on a Friday, when courts are not expected to sit until Monday, raises serious questions about intent, especially as the convention would have been concluded before any hearing.
According to them, even a layman understands the legal implication of such timing, stressing that by the time the court convenes, the matter would have been overtaken by events, rendering the application largely academic.
The stakeholders further clarified that, in law, a Motion on Notice does not translate to a Stay of Execution of a subsisting judgment of the Court of Appeal, emphasizing that due process must be properly followed before any such claim can hold water.
They therefore urged party members and the general public to disregard rumours of any court order stopping the convention, insisting that there is no legal barrier to the exercise and calling for calm as the party proceeds with its scheduled activities.