PDP Petitions Chief Judge, Seeks End to Exclusive Assignment of Party Cases to Justices Omotosho, Lifu, and Abdulmalik

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has raised fresh concerns over what it describes as a troubling and consistent pattern in the assignment of its legal matters at the Federal High Court, Abuja Division.

 

In a petition to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Terhemba Tsoho, the opposition party is demanding an end to what it views as the selective and repetitive allocation of its cases to three specific judges.

 

The petition, dated November 19, 2025 and signed by the PDP’s National Secretary, Ambassador Taofeek Arapaja, highlights what the party terms a “disturbing trend” in the handling of PDP-related matters in the past few years. According to the party, virtually all suits filed by or against it within the Abuja judicial division have consistently been assigned to Justices James Omotosho, Peter Odo Lifu, and Abdulmalik.

This pattern, the party argues, raises serious concerns about fairness, transparency, and the appearance of neutrality in the administration of justice—particularly in a political climate already heated by internal party contests and national political tensions.

 

A Pattern That Raises Questions

 

In the petition, the PDP notes that the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court has 12 judges in total. However, despite this sizeable number, only the three aforementioned judges have been presiding over virtually every case involving the PDP, its factions, or its national leadership.

 

The letter states:

“Even though there are other Judges numbering up to nine in the Abuja Judicial Division, who could have taken up any of these matters… several of our party members have recently complained bitterly to the newly elected members of the National Working Committee and the National Executive Committee.”

 

According to the party, the consistency with which these three judges are selected for its matters has not gone unnoticed by stakeholders within the party. It adds that the situation has triggered a wave of suspicion and unease among party members, many of whom now reportedly fear bias or undue influence in the adjudication of cases touching on the party’s interest.

 

The letter further explains that these particular courts, presided over by Justices Omotosho, Lifu, and Abdulmalik, have come to be regarded by a broad segment of the PDP as “courts of particular concern,” a description that implies a perceived lack of neutrality or an unusual pattern that warrants immediate attention.

 

Internal Disquiet and Public Perception

 

Beyond the legal implications, the PDP warns that public confidence in the judiciary could be undermined if the pattern is not addressed. In the letter, the party stresses that justice must not only be served but must also be seen to be served.

 

This insistence on the appearance of fairness underlines a widespread principle in judicial practice: that the credibility of the courts depends not just on their decisions but also on the process through which those decisions are reached.

 

The PDP argues that during a period of heightened internal reorganization and political recalibration, the party is increasingly vulnerable to litigation. This makes the impartial and non-selective assignment of judges even more critical. With more cases expected to be filed by contending power blocs within the party, as well as external adversaries, the PDP insists that now is the time to ensure that such cases are evenly distributed among all judges in the Abuja Division.

 

No Doubt About Judiciary’s Integrity, PDP Assures

 

Despite its concerns, the party takes care to clarify in the petition that its complaint should not be interpreted as a direct attack on the competence, integrity, or professionalism of the three judges involved. The PDP emphasizes that it has “no doubt whatsoever” about the integrity of the judiciary.

 

The letter also commends the leadership of the Federal High Court under Justice Tsoho, noting that the court has demonstrated fairness in several high-profile political and non-political matters in recent years.

 

This attempt at balance appears deliberate, as the PDP seeks to avoid escalating tensions with the judiciary while still drawing attention to what it sees as a procedural irregularity that must be corrected.

 

A Call for Judicial Balance Going Forward

 

With Nigeria heading into a new political phase marked by heightened competition, legal tussles, and internal party disputes, the PDP’s petition signals a growing insistence among political actors for more transparent judicial procedures. Analysts say the party’s concerns might resonate with other political entities that have experienced similar patterns but have not made their grievances public.

 

The PDP’s request is straightforward: that subsequent cases involving the party—whether initiated internally or externally—should not be assigned to Justices Omotosho, Lifu, or Abdulmalik. Instead, the party wants its matters distributed among the full complement of judges in the Abuja Division to ensure fairness, impartiality, and public confidence.

 

The petition stops short of alleging deliberate bias or wrongdoing but stresses that the repeated assignment of cases to only three judges creates a perception problem that could compromise trust in the judiciary.

 

Awaiting the Chief Judge’s Response

 

As of the time of writing, the Federal High Court has not publicly responded to the petition. It also remains unclear whether Justice Tsoho will issue new internal directives or seek clarifications from the court’s case management department regarding how judges are assigned to politically sensitive matters.

 

Judicial experts note that while the Chief Judge has the authority to review and modify internal case assignment procedures, such changes are often handled discreetly to avoid public controversy. Others believe the PDP’s petition may prompt broader discussions about transparency in the federal judiciary, particularly regarding political cases.

 

For now, the PDP awaits the court’s response, hoping that the concerns raised will lead to reforms that ensure equitable distribution of cases and strengthen public trust in the judiciary’s handling of political matters.