The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal arising from the long-running leadership dispute involving the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and its former National Chairman, Shehu Gabam, effectively bringing the litigation over his recognition as the party’s leader to an end.
Counsel to the SDP, Prince Adewole Adebayo, disclosed this on Wednesday while speaking with journalists in Abuja after the apex court delivered judgment in the matter.
The dispute stemmed from a Federal High Court judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise Gabam, a decision the SDP challenged before the Court of Appeal.
According to Adebayo, the Court of Appeal subsequently set aside the Federal High Court judgment. The plaintiff in the original suit then proceeded to the Supreme Court.
The apex court, however, 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,” Adebayo said.
He explained that Gabam had already been removed from the party and had not challenged his removal, arguing that the original suit had been instituted by another party member seeking his recognition.
With the Supreme Court’s dismissal, Adebayo said the litigation over Gabam’s claim to the SDP leadership had effectively come to an end.
He recalled that the party had challenged the Federal High Court decision at the Court of Appeal and obtained 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.
Adebayo said the latest ruling marked the conclusion of what he described as a dispute belonging to the party’s previous leadership era.
The lawyer also said the SDP had no interest in seeking sanctions 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.
SDP shifts attention to INEC disputes
With the Gabam litigation now dismissed, the SDP’s attention remains focused on two other cases before the Supreme Court involving the party and INEC.
Adebayo said the pending cases concern the electoral commission’s timetable for political parties, particularly periods allowed for the nomination and substitution of candidates.
He said the SDP’s challenge was not prompted by an inability to comply with INEC’s timetable but by concerns over the commission’s interpretation and exercise of its statutory powers.
“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, as the electoral management body, must operate within the powers conferred on it by law.
“INEC’s job is to be a servant of democracy and to follow the law as stated,” he said.
According to him, the party’s objective in the pending cases is to obtain judicial clarification on the limits of INEC’s powers and ensure that political parties operate under clear and lawful electoral rules.
The SDP National Chairman, Professor Sadiq Umar Gombe, also welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, describing it as a victory for the party and democracy.
Gombe said the dispute had passed through the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal before reaching the Supreme Court.
“I think we are happy, and this is victory not only for the SDP but also for democracy,” he said.
He added that the party’s repeated presence before the courts reflected what he described as its broader commitment to democratic governance.
“Whenever you see SDP at any of the courts, either the Federal Court or the Court of Appeal or here, we are always here in defence of democracy, not just in defense of SDP as a party,” Gombe said.
While the Supreme Court’s dismissal closes the litigation over Gabam’s disputed recognition, the party’s separate legal challenge to aspects of INEC’s electoral timetable remains pending before the apex court.
