SDP Leadership Crisis Deepens As Party Rejects Gabam’s Court Victory

The Social Democratic Party (SDP) in Nigeria is embroiled in a protracted leadership crisis, recently exacerbated by the party's rejection of a Federal High Court judgment purportedly favoring its expelled former National Chairman, Shehu Gabam. This latest development follows a definitive Supreme Court ruling on May 22, 2026, which had nullified a Court of Appeal decision that previously recognized Gabam's faction, thereby affirming the leadership of Dr. Sadiq Abubakar Gombe. The SDP insists that the new Federal High Court judgment, delivered on June 24, 2026, cannot override the apex court's pronouncement, urging the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to disregard it and maintain the status quo. This ongoing legal battle underscores the complexities of intra-party disputes and the critical importance of judicial hierarchy in Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence.

Nigeria's political landscape is frequently characterized by intricate intra-party disputes, and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) has been at the forefront of such internal wrangling. The party is currently navigating a deepening leadership crisis, marked by conflicting judicial pronouncements and a firm stance from its recognized leadership against attempts to undermine its structure. The latest flashpoint emerged when the SDP leadership publicly urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to disregard a recent Federal High Court judgment, which the party's expelled former National Chairman, Shehu Gabam, is reportedly attempting to leverage to reclaim control.

This development is particularly significant as it directly challenges the finality of a Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 22, 2026, which had previously settled the party's leadership dispute by affirming the faction led by Dr. Sadiq Abubakar Gombe. The SDP's rejection of the new Federal High Court ruling highlights a critical legal and political contention: whether a lower court's decision can stand in the face of a superior court's definitive pronouncement on the same subject matter. This article delves into the intricate legal trajectory of the SDP crisis, analyzing the interplay of judicial hierarchy, party autonomy, and the regulatory role of INEC.

The genesis of the SDP's leadership crisis can be traced to disputes surrounding the conduct of party primaries, particularly the Ekiti State governorship primary election, and questions regarding the legitimacy of the National Working Committee (NWC) led by Dr. Sadiq Gombe. An aggrieved party member, Fayemi Babatunde, initiated legal action, challenging the legality of the primary and the constitution of the Gombe-led NWC, arguing it violated the SDP constitution and provisions of the Electoral Act.

Initially, on January 19, 2026, the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, dismissed Babatunde's suit, upholding the legality of the Gombe-led leadership and the party's internal processes. However, this decision was partially overturned by the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, in a judgment delivered on March 27, 2026, in appeal CA/ABJ/CV/126/2026. The appellate court ruled that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to make definitive pronouncements on the SDP leadership tussle and set aside portions of the lower court's judgment that recognized Dr. Gombe as chairman and validated the November 8, 2025, Ekiti governorship primary. Following this Court of Appeal decision, INEC updated its official records in April 2026, listing Shehu Gabam as the SDP National Chairman.

The legal landscape of the SDP leadership crisis underwent a significant shift with the Supreme Court's unanimous judgment on May 22, 2026, in suit SC/CV/229/2026. The apex court nullified the Court of Appeal's decision entirely, thereby dismantling the legal foundation upon which INEC had recognized the Gabam-led leadership. This Supreme Court ruling effectively affirmed the leadership of Dr. Sadiq Abubakar Gombe and was widely seen as bringing a measure of finality to the protracted internal battle.

However, the crisis deepened with a subsequent Federal High Court judgment delivered on June 24, 2026, in a suit instituted by Salawu Adeniyi Mustapha Adeoti against INEC and others. Shehu Gabam is reportedly attempting to rely on this new High Court judgment to reassert his claim to the party's leadership. The current SDP leadership, through its National Publicity Secretary, Araba Rufus Aiyenigba, has vehemently rejected this move, arguing that the Federal High Court judgment cannot override the earlier, superior decision of the Supreme Court. They contend that the High Court judgment itself was founded on the Court of Appeal decision that had already been set aside by the Supreme Court more than a month prior. This argument aligns with the principle of *stare decisis* and the hierarchical structure of the Nigerian judiciary, where decisions of superior courts are binding on lower courts.

Adding another layer of complexity, Shehu Gabam is also facing a separate legal challenge: a criminal case instituted by the SDP National Chairman, Dr. Sadiq Abubakar, before an FCT Chief Magistrates Court. In suit No. DCC/10/2026, Gabam, alongside Chukwuma Ogbonna Uchechukwu, was arraigned in May 2026 over alleged criminal misappropriation of funds, breach of trust, and forgery involving party funds. This criminal proceeding, while distinct from the leadership tussle, underscores the deep divisions and allegations of impropriety within the party.

The role of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in these disputes has also come under scrutiny. INEC is constitutionally empowered to register and regulate political parties under Sections 222, 223, and 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), read with Section 75 of the Electoral Act 2022. However, the Commission often finds itself in a precarious position when confronted with conflicting court orders. Legal scholars and analysts have criticized inconsistencies in INEC's approach, noting its willingness to act on Federal High Court rulings in some instances while insisting on Supreme Court judgments in others. This perceived inconsistency, coupled with the judiciary's varying interpretations of what constitutes an 'internal affair' of a political party (which courts generally lack jurisdiction over, unless statutory provisions are breached), contributes to the prolonged nature of such crises.

The ongoing SDP leadership crisis, marked by the party's rejection of a recent Federal High Court judgment in light of a prior Supreme Court ruling, serves as a potent reminder of the intricate challenges inherent in Nigeria's political and legal landscape. The Supreme Court's judgment of May 22, 2026, which nullified the Court of Appeal's decision and effectively affirmed Dr. Sadiq Abubakar Gombe as the authentic National Chairman, should ordinarily represent the final word on the party's leadership. The SDP's current stance, urging INEC to uphold the apex court's decision over a subsequent lower court ruling, is a critical assertion of judicial hierarchy and the principle of *stare decisis*.

For legal practitioners, this case highlights the imperative of understanding the hierarchy of judicial pronouncements and the finality of Supreme Court decisions. Any attempt to rely on a lower court judgment that contradicts a superior court's ruling on the same subject matter is likely to be an exercise in futility and could lead to further legal complications. Practitioners advising political parties and their factions must emphasize adherence to party constitutions, the Electoral Act, and the ultimate authority of the Supreme Court. The role of INEC remains crucial; its consistent application of the law and strict adherence to judicial hierarchy are essential to fostering stability within political parties and strengthening public confidence in Nigeria's democratic process. The resolution of this particular crisis, and how INEC navigates these conflicting orders, will set important precedents for future intra-party disputes ahead of the 2027 general elections.