Ogunkolade Tosin
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal arising from the prolonged dispute over the leadership of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), bringing the legal battle over the status of its former National Chairman, Shehu Gabam, to a close.
A five-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, delivered the judgment on Wednesday.
Other members of the panel were Justices Haruna Tsammani, A.A. Adumein, Jonah Adah and Joseph Oyewole.
Justice Jauro said the appeal had become irrelevant and was therefore dismissed.
The decision brings to another stage of closure a leadership crisis that has taken the SDP through the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Counsel to the SDP, Prince Adewole Adebayo, who spoke with journalists after the judgment in Abuja, said the dispute arose from a Federal High Court judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise Gabam as national chairman of the party.
According to him, the SDP challenged the judgment at the Court of Appeal, which subsequently set it aside.
The plaintiff in the original suit then appealed the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court.
But the apex court on Wednesday held that there was no longer a live issue requiring its determination.
“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,” Adebayo said.
The legal dispute is rooted in a wider leadership crisis that engulfed the SDP after Gabam was suspended and later expelled by the party.
The party’s leadership accused Gabam and some other officials of administrative and financial misconduct, allegations that formed part of the internal dispute over the control of the party.
Gabam’s removal was subsequently challenged through a series of court actions, including suits seeking recognition of him as the party’s national chairman.
The dispute also intersected with the party’s electoral activities and its dealings with INEC, creating competing claims over who was authorised to speak for the SDP.
In one of the proceedings, a Federal High Court ordered INEC to recognise Gabam as national chairman.
The SDP appealed, and the Court of Appeal later set aside the judgment.
Adebayo said Gabam had already been removed from the party and had not personally challenged his expulsion.
He explained that the original suit was filed by another party member seeking recognition for Gabam.
“We argued the case that the Court of Appeal should correct that judge, and the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment,” he said.
With the Supreme Court now dismissing the subsequent appeal, Adebayo said the litigation surrounding Gabam’s claim to the leadership of the party had effectively ended.
He said the SDP had deliberately refrained from seeking punitive measures against those who pursued the litigation.
“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.
For the SDP’s current leadership, the judgment represents an important moment after months of legal uncertainty.
National Chairman of the party, Professor Sadiq Umar Gombe, welcomed the decision, describing it as a victory for the party and democracy.
“I think we are happy, and this is victory not only for the SDP, but a victory for democracy,” Gombe said.
He said the party’s frequent presence before the courts should not be interpreted merely as an attempt to defend its institutional interests.
“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.
However, the conclusion of the Gabam-related litigation does not mean the SDP’s legal disagreements with INEC are over.
Adebayo said two other cases involving the party and the electoral commission remained before the Supreme Court.
The cases relate to INEC’s timetable for political parties to nominate and substitute candidates ahead of elections.
According to him, the SDP is challenging what it considers an attempt by INEC to shorten the statutory periods available to political parties for nomination and substitution.
He said the party’s decision to approach the courts was not prompted by an inability to comply with INEC’s timetable.
Rather, he said, the objective was to obtain judicial clarification on the electoral commission’s powers and prevent what the party considers an abuse of the electoral process.
“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,” Adebayo said.
He maintained that INEC must exercise its powers within the limits prescribed by law.
“INEC’s job is to be a servant of democracy and to follow the law as stated,” he said.
While Wednesday’s judgment closes the latest chapter in the prolonged contest over Gabam’s place in the SDP leadership structure, the party’s remaining cases against INEC mean that its legal engagement with the electoral process is far from over.
Adebayo said the party would continue to pursue the cases before the Supreme Court.
