There was a temporary relief of apprehension in the camp of the People’s Redemption Party (PRP) as the Court set aside an ex-parte order restraining the conduct of its governorship primary in Bauchi State.

The party on May 25, 2026, was ordered to halt its primary elections, although the party denied knowledge of the court order, saying that the ex-parte order came behind the exercise.

In  Suit No. BA/181/2026 filed by Barr. Idrees Safiyanu Gambo against the PRP, Senator Shehu Buba Umar, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), he prayed that the party’s primary and Congress be put on hold.

The court granted the prayers and set June 8 for hearing of the case, the date was seen as cog in the wheel by PRP. Its lawyers approached the court to vacate the ex-parte order.

However, in a ruling delivered on Monday, Justice Kunaza N. Hamidu granted an application for abridgment of time and subsequently set aside the ex-parte order.

The court ordered that all parties in the suit respond to processes served on them within two days of receipt.

Justice Kunaza N. Hamidu said, “That an order is hereby made for the abridgment of time within which the parties herein may respond to all processes served on them in this suit to wit-within two (2) days from receipt of service of any or all process(s) concerned in this suit”.

Justice Hamidu stated that after considering the motion ex-parte, supporting affidavit, and written address dated May 28, 2026, the court found sufficient grounds to grant the application.

“That the ex-parte order of this Honourable Court made on the 25th May, 2026 is hereby set aside.”

The matter was subsequently adjourned to June 4, 2026, for the hearing of the motion on notice.

Meanwhile, a group of legal practitioners, Lawyers for the Cause of Bauchi commended Justice Hamidu for what they described as a timely and appropriate judicial intervention.

Barr. Nasir H. Bala Esq, the Secretary of the group, said the decision to vacate the earlier order demonstrated judicial responsibility, adherence to due process, and commitment to the rule of law.

The lawyers noted that findings obtained from the court registry indicated that the PRP governorship primary election had already been conducted on May 25, 2026, before the restraining order was effectively served on the parties involved.

According to the group, most parties received service of the order on May 26, a day after the primary election had taken place.

Nasir disclosed that Senator Shehu Buba Umar, the second defendant in the suit, had filed an application seeking an abridgment of time to enable the court hear the matter expeditiously due to its pre-election nature.

He explained that the court acknowledged the urgency associated with pre-election matters and the need for their prompt determination.

The group further stated that during Monday’s proceedings, the court was informed through affidavit evidence that the governorship primary election sought to be restrained had already been concluded before service of the earlier order.

Consequently, the court held that the act sought to be restrained had already occurred and that the basis for the interim injunction no longer existed.

Lawyers for the Cause of Bauchi described the ruling as a demonstration of judicial courage, fairness, and fidelity to the law.

They argued that the decision reinforced the principle that courts have a duty to review their orders whenever circumstances and the interests of justice require such action.

The group added that the ruling had eased concerns among PRP supporters and supporters of Senator Shehu Buba Umar, who feared the litigation could affect the party’s preparations ahead of the 2027 governorship election in Bauchi State.

While commending the judiciary for giving accelerated attention to the case, the lawyers urged all political actors, litigants, supporters, and stakeholders to respect the judicial process and avoid actions capable of undermining ongoing proceedings.

They emphasised that democracy thrives when institutions operate within the confines of the law and courts remain impartial in dispensing justice.