The internal crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Rivers State has taken a legal turn, following a suit filed by party stakeholders challenging the nomination of candidates for the last local government elections.

The PDP emerged victorious in three key local government areas—Port Harcourt City, Obio-Akpor and Ogba-Egbema-Ndoni councils—widely regarded as politically strategic in the state.

However, the legitimacy of the party’s candidates in the polls has now been questioned in court.

Three PDP stakeholders, Enyi Uchechukwu, Wisdom Kalio, and Uche Amadi, have dragged the party’s factional state chairman, Aaron Chukwuemeka, alongside the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC), the PDP, and the Rivers State Government before the Rivers State High Court.

In an originating summons, the claimants asked the court to determine whether Chukwuemeka, whose emergence followed congresses allegedly nullified by a subsisting court judgment, possessed the legal authority to submit a list of candidates to RSIEC for the local government elections held on August 30, 2025.

They contended that the congress which produced Chukwuemeka had earlier been set aside by the Rivers State High Court, thereby rendering any actions taken by him, including the submission of candidates’ names, invalid.

Among other reliefs, the claimants sought a declaration on whether the PDP validly presented candidates through Chukwuemeka for the elections, and whether those candidates were qualified to participate in the polls.

They further urged the court to declare the PDP ward, local government, and state congresses conducted on July 27 and August 10, 2024, null and void, insisting that Chukwuemeka, as a product of the nullified congresses, lacked the capacity to conduct primaries or forward any list of candidates for elective offices.

The stakeholders also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from further interference in the party’s internal affairs relating to the nomination and presentation of candidates for elections.

At the hearing, counsel to the claimants, Glory Chizim-Chinda, applied for substituted service on the second and third defendants.

The presiding judge, Justice Stephen Jumbo, granted the application and ordered that court processes be served at the PDP state secretariat along Aba Road.

Justice Jumbo adjourned the matter to February 9, 2026, for an application for joinder, and directed that the processes be served on the chairmen, their deputies, and councillors of Port Harcourt City, Obio-Akpor, and Ogba-Egbema-Ndoni local government areas.

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has stated that its main goal is to remove President Bola Tinubu from office, describing it as a necessary step to rescue Nigeria from what the party calls an unprecedented governance crisis.

Speaking on Friday during an interview on Channels Television’s Politics Today, ADC spokesperson Bolaji Abdullahi said, “It’s solely to get Tinubu out of power. That is the agenda. There is no scenario where he remains in power, and we are able to save this country.”

Abdullahi, a former minister, claimed that Nigeria has been “hijacked,” adding, “When people say you can smash it, grab it, and run with it, that is the language of banditry,” which he said reflects the mindset of the current administration.

He also raised concerns over alleged legislative manipulation, particularly around tax laws, describing recent government actions as unprecedented in Nigeria’s democratic history.

Abdullahi accused the government of forging a law that had already been duly passed by the National Assembly, questioning the legality of such an act.

“A government that can forge a duly passed law; what do you call that?” he asked.

On the Federal Government’s reported payment of $9 million to foreign lobbyists in the United States, allegedly to improve Nigeria’s image before American leaders including former President Donald Trump, Abdullahi said the process lacked transparency and legality.

“Is it a bad thing to lobby? No. But how was this contract awarded? Who paid the money? What budget line was it taken from? How was the money transferred out of Nigeria?” he asked, adding that such spending reflects misplaced priorities.

“If you invest nine million dollars in internal security, you will see results. You won’t have to convince another country that your nation is safe,” Abdullahi argued, noting that the government cares more about appearances abroad than the daily insecurity faced by Nigerians.

“They don’t care whether Nigerians are still dying. They just want to look good before Americans,” he said.

Abdullahi also expressed alarm over a recently signed medical Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Nigeria and the United States, reportedly signed on December 19, which he said gives the US significant control over how funds are spent, including determining the regions that would benefit.

“No Nigerians have seen the details of this MOU,” he said, describing the terms as “shocking” and raising concerns about sovereignty and accountability.

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed March 9, 2026, to deliver judgment in a fresh suit contesting the constitutional authority of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to remove elected state officials during a state of emergency.

Justice James Omotosho adjourned the matter for judgment on Friday after counsel to the plaintiff and the defendants adopted their final written addresses and presented arguments for and against the suit.

The case was instituted by the Civil Society Observatory for Constitutional and Legal Compliance (CSOCLC), through its counsel, Nnamdi Nwokocha-Ahaaiwe.

The organisation is challenging actions taken by the President following the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State last year.

The plaintiff argued that although Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution empowers the President to declare a state of emergency, it does not grant him the authority to suspend or remove elected executive and legislative officials, nor to appoint an interim administrator to govern a state.

Justice Omotosho, however, observed that the suit bears resemblance to earlier cases he had dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, relying on the Emergency Powers (Jurisdiction) Act of 1962.

He also referenced a Supreme Court ruling of December 15, 2025, which reportedly struck out a similar matter on procedural grounds.

Responding, Ahaaiwe acknowledged the earlier decisions but maintained that they were wrongly decided.

He argued that the 1962 Act had become obsolete and was deliberately excluded from Nigeria’s statute books before the commencement of the 1999 Constitution.

According to him, any presidential order issued in 2025 purporting to modify or rely on the defunct law is unconstitutional, null, and void.

“The Constitution has fully covered the field on emergency powers,” Ahaaiwe submitted, adding that no executive proclamation can amend or override the clear provisions of Section 305 of the Constitution.

Counsel to the first to fifth defendants, including the President and the Attorney-General of the Federation, countered the argument by insisting that the 1962 Act and the subsequent modification order remain valid.

They contended that only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to entertain such disputes and urged the court to strike out the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking 26 reliefs, among them a declaration that Rivers State cannot be administered by an appointed administrator, retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, outside the provisions of the Constitution.