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

The Social Democratic Party (SDP) is embroiled in a deepening leadership crisis following its rejection of a Federal High Court judgment that purportedly reinstated its expelled former National Chairman, Shehu Musa Gabam. The party, led by Professor Sadiq Gombe, has urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to disregard the judgment, contending that it relies on a Court of Appeal decision previously set aside by the Supreme Court on May 22, 2026. This legal imbroglio highlights the complexities of internal party democracy in Nigeria, the jurisdictional limits of courts in political disputes, and INEC's role in recognizing party leadership, particularly when faced with conflicting judicial pronouncements. The SDP maintains that Gabam's expulsion was validly ratified by its National Executive Committee, asserting the supremacy of internal party mechanisms in leadership determination.

The political landscape in Nigeria is frequently punctuated by internal party disputes, and the recent leadership crisis within the Social Democratic Party (SDP) offers a compelling case study of the legal and political complexities involved. The SDP has publicly rejected a Federal High Court judgment, delivered on June 24, 2026, which its expelled former National Chairman, Shehu Musa Gabam, is reportedly leveraging to reclaim leadership. This rejection signals a deepening factional struggle, with significant implications for the party's stability and its preparations for future elections.

At the heart of the contention is the interplay between judicial pronouncements at different levels and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of political parties. The SDP, under the leadership of Professor Sadiq Gombe, has formally urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to disregard the Federal High Court's decision, arguing that the foundational premise of that judgment – a Court of Appeal ruling – had already been nullified by a Supreme Court decision rendered on May 22, 2026. This article will delve into the legal arguments underpinning the SDP's stance, the relevant statutory and jurisprudential frameworks, and the broader implications for political party governance and electoral integrity in Nigeria.

The legal framework governing political parties and electoral processes in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. These instruments empower INEC to register political parties, monitor their operations, including conventions, congresses, and party primaries, and ensure compliance with their constitutions and the law. However, the extent of judicial intervention in internal party affairs has been a recurring subject of jurisprudential debate. While courts generally uphold the autonomy of political parties to manage their internal affairs, this principle is not absolute.

Historically, Nigerian courts have adopted a cautious approach, intervening only where a dispute transcends purely domestic party management and involves legal rights arising from party primaries, statutory compliance, or constitutional interpretation. The Electoral Act 2022, for instance, includes provisions aimed at promoting internal democracy within political parties, particularly concerning candidate nomination processes. This legislative intent often creates a tension between party autonomy and the need for judicial oversight to ensure adherence to democratic principles and the rule of law. The current SDP crisis is a manifestation of this delicate balance, with various court decisions shaping the trajectory of the party's leadership struggle.

The SDP leadership crisis has seen a series of conflicting judicial pronouncements, creating a complex legal quagmire. Initially, a Federal High Court in Abuja had affirmed Professor Sadiq Gombe as the authentic National Chairman of the SDP. However, this decision was partially overturned by the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, in a unanimous judgment delivered on March 27, 2026, in the case of *Fayemi Tosin Babatunde v. INEC* (CA/ABJ/CV/126/2026). The appellate court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to make pronouncements on the SDP leadership tussle, setting aside the Federal High Court's affirmation of Gombe and its validation of a primary election. Following this, INEC recognized the Shehu Gabam-led National Working Committee, updating its official website to reflect this, with a bold inscription stating “By Court Order.”

However, the narrative took another turn with the Supreme Court's judgment on May 22, 2026. The Gombe-led faction of the SDP asserts that this apex court ruling effectively set aside all previous pronouncements by the Court of Appeal regarding SDP leadership issues. They contend that the Supreme Court reaffirmed that matters relating to the internal affairs of political parties remain outside external interference and must be resolved according to party constitutions. This position aligns with the general principle that courts do not manage political parties, although exceptions exist for pre-election matters or breaches of party constitutions.

The current dispute centers on Shehu Musa Gabam's reliance on a Federal High Court judgment of June 24, 2026, to reclaim leadership. The SDP argues that this Federal High Court judgment is predicated on the earlier Court of Appeal decision in *Fayemi Tosin Babatunde v. INEC*, which the Supreme Court had already nullified. Furthermore, the party claims that the Federal High Court judgment does not contain any positive order directing INEC to recognize Gabam as National Chairman. This raises critical questions about the hierarchy of courts and the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions, which are final and binding on all other courts in Nigeria.

Adding another layer of complexity, the SDP (Gombe faction) maintains that Gabam was validly suspended on June 24, 2025, investigated for alleged financial misconduct, and subsequently expelled, with the expulsion formally ratified by the National Executive Committee (NEC) on March 9, 2026. They argue that Gabam failed to utilize the internal appeal mechanisms provided by the party's constitution within the stipulated timeframe. This emphasizes the importance of internal party dispute resolution mechanisms, which courts often encourage before judicial intervention. The conflicting judgments and the party's insistence on its internal disciplinary processes underscore the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of judicial oversight in party politics.

The ongoing leadership crisis within the Social Democratic Party, marked by conflicting court judgments and the party's rejection of a Federal High Court ruling, presents a significant challenge to political stability and internal party democracy in Nigeria. For legal practitioners, this scenario underscores the critical importance of understanding the hierarchy of courts, the doctrine of *stare decisis*, and the nuanced application of the principle of non-interference in internal party affairs. The SDP's reliance on the Supreme Court's May 22, 2026, decision, which purportedly set aside earlier Court of Appeal pronouncements, highlights the finality and binding nature of apex court judgments.

Practitioners advising political parties or aggrieved members must meticulously trace the judicial history of such disputes and ascertain the most authoritative pronouncement. The role of INEC, as the statutory regulator, in navigating these conflicting orders and recognizing legitimate party leadership remains crucial. Moving forward, all stakeholders should watch for INEC's response to the SDP's appeal and any further judicial clarifications on the specific Federal High Court judgment of June 24, 2026. This case serves as a potent reminder of the need for political parties to adhere strictly to their constitutions and internal mechanisms, and for the judiciary to provide clear and consistent jurisprudence to prevent forum shopping and ensure certainty in political governance.