The leadership crisis rocking the Social Democratic Party (SDP) has taken a fresh turn after a Federal High Court in Abuja reaffirmed Alhaji Shehu Musa Gabam as the authentic National Chairman of the party, strengthening his claim to the party’s leadership amid lingering internal disputes.

The Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment, which was served on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on Thursday, held that Gabam remains the recognised National Chairman of the SDP and is legally empowered to act on behalf of the party in matters relating to the submission of candidates for elections.

The suit was instituted by Salawu-Adeniyi Mustapha Olaitan against INEC, the SDP, Gabam and the party’s Acting National Secretary, Uchechukwu Chukwuma, over the nomination of the party’s governorship candidate for the 2026 Osun State governorship election.

Beyond the Osun governorship nomination, the case raised fundamental questions about the powers of INEC and the authority of the party’s national leadership in submitting candidates for elections.

In its judgment, the court held that under Sections 29(1) and 29(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022, political parties act through their recognised national officers when submitting the names of candidates to INEC.

The court declared that Gabam, as National Chairman, together with the Acting National Secretary, possesses the legal authority to sign, transmit and authenticate the submission of candidates on behalf of the SDP, adding that such submissions constitute valid compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

It further ruled that once a candidate has emerged through a validly conducted primary election, the responsibility of the party’s national officers is purely administrative—to communicate the party’s decision to INEC—and that such administrative actions cannot alter or override the outcome of a valid primary election.

The court also stressed that the Electoral Act expressly recognises political parties, acting through their recognised national leadership, as the lawful authorities for the submission of candidates, while INEC has a statutory obligation to accept such submissions.

According to the judgment, the electoral commission has no legal discretion to reject, ignore or refuse to recognise the name of a candidate who emerged from a valid primary election and whose nomination was submitted in accordance with the Electoral Act.

The court observed that the law does not permit INEC to question or second-guess the internal leadership structure of a political party once a submission has been made through its recognised national officers.

It held that any refusal by the commission to accept a submission transmitted by the National Chairman and Acting National Secretary would be contrary to the Electoral Act, ultra vires, null and void.

In arriving at its decision, the court relied on the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, as well as several Supreme Court decisions, including SDP v. INEC (2023) and Jegede v. INEC (2021), which affirmed that the nomination and sponsorship of candidates are internal affairs of political parties, while INEC’s role is limited to receiving and publishing candidates validly submitted in accordance with the law.

The ruling is expected to bolster Gabam’s position in the protracted leadership tussle within the SDP, where rival factions have continued to lay claim to the party’s national leadership.

Political observers believe the judgment could significantly shape the party’s preparations for future elections by settling, at least for now, the question of who has the legal authority to communicate official party decisions, submit candidates and interface with INEC on behalf of the SDP.