Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday rebuked Mr. Terkaa Aondo, SAN, one of the lawyers in the Kabiru Turaki-led Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) leadership dispute suit filed against a faction of the party loyal to the FCT Minister, Mr. Nyesom Wike, for alleged distortion of facts.
The development occurred shortly after the case was called for hearing before Justice Abdulmalik.
The plaintiffs — PDP, its National Chairman, Kabiru Turaki, and the National Secretary, Taofeek Arapaja — had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2520/2025, sued the Inspector-General of Police and the Nigerian Police as 1st and 2nd defendants.
The plaintiffs are asking the court for an order directing the officers of the police to vacate the party’s national headquarters located at Wadata Plaza in Wuse, Abuja, among other reliefs.
At the last sitting on December 5, 2025, Mr. Ken Njemanze, SAN, who appeared for parties seeking to be joined in the case (the Wike-loyal faction), had notified the court of their motion for joinder.
Justice Abdulmalik had directed all parties to file their processes before the next adjourned date and fixed January 16 for hearing of all pending applications and the substantive matter.
Upon resumed hearing on Friday, Mr. Paul Erokoro, SAN, who led the team of lawyers for the plaintiff (Turaki-led PDP), informed the court that after the last sitting, they were served by the parties seeking to be joined with a counter affidavit to the main suit, even though they were yet to be joined.
Erokoro said they had responded earlier in the morning by filing an application for the court to strike out the counter affidavit.
He sought a stand down or a short adjournment to allow them do the needful.
Responding to Erokoro’s submission, Mr. Emmanuel Okala, SAN, who led other senior lawyers in the camp of the faction loyal to Wike, expressed worry about the application for either a stand down or adjournment.
He told the court that on the last adjourned date, parties came to some form of agreement which led the court to direct that the case be adjourned to January 16 for hearing of all pending applications and the substantive suit.
“My lord, that is the standing order of this court and nothing has changed that. And it is the duty of parties to obey a subsisting order,” he said.
Okala said though he was not personally present on that day, his colleague, Njemanze, who led their team, reported to him that Aondo, who appeared for the plaintiffs, agreed to the arrangement.
Besides, he said Aondo stated in the open court that day that the plaintiffs would not oppose their motion for joinder.
“We are ready to go on with the hearing my lord and we are not asking for adjournment or stand down,” Okala insisted.
Responding, Erokoro said like Okala, he was not in court on the last adjourned date, but that the information he received from Aondo was that the court did not delve into the application for joinder.
At this point, Justice Abdulmalik directed Aondo to address the court on the issue.
Aondo explained that on December 5, 2025, when Njemanze said he had a motion for joinder, he (Aondo) intimated the court that he was just being informed about the application without any prior knowledge.
The lawyer explained further that the court said the matter should be kept until the next adjourned date and that there was neither a consensus on that nor did the court make a ruling on it.
Justice Abdulmalik then expressed surprise at Aondo’s response.
