By BONIFACE AKARAH

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has criticised the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissing a suit filed by members of the Board of Trustees (BoT) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) seeking recognition of the Kabiru Turaki-led Interim National Working Committee, describing the decision as legally flawed and capable of deepening public concerns over judicial consistency.

According to a statement signed by HURIWA National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, the association said it viewed the judgment as "manifestly erroneous, legally unsustainable, internally contradictory and a troubling departure from established judicial reasoning."

It argued that the verdict deserves urgent review by the Court of Appeal, while maintaining that the trial court appeared to have overlooked the implications of an earlier appellate decision questioning the legal basis of the PDP's March 29, 2026 convention.

"If the legal foundation upon which that convention rested had already been fundamentally undermined by the Court of Appeal, how then could another court rely on the same convention as the basis for validating the leadership produced therefrom?" the association asked.

HURIWA argued that such judicial outcomes create uncertainty over the interpretation of the law and could weaken public confidence in the administration of justice.

The group also faulted the court's finding that the PDP Board of Trustees lacked the legal standing to institute the suit.

"The PDP Board of Trustees is not an ad hoc creation of any faction. It is a constitutionally recognised and permanent organ of the party," the statement said, arguing that denying the board the locus standi to challenge issues affecting the party's constitutional structure raises significant legal and constitutional questions.

The association further questioned the role played by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) during the proceedings, saying the electoral body ought to maintain neutrality in internal political disputes.

"Electoral management bodies must never create the impression—rightly or wrongly—that they have aligned themselves with one faction in an internal political dispute," HURIWA stated, adding that public confidence in INEC depends on its visible impartiality.

It argued that the judgment has reinforced existing concerns over perceived inconsistencies in judicial decisions involving politically sensitive matters, warning that such perceptions, whether justified or not, could erode confidence in the judiciary.

"The Judiciary owes Nigerians a solemn duty not only to dispense justice but to ensure that justice is manifestly seen to have been done," the association maintained.

HURIWA called on the Court of Appeal to hear the expected appeal expeditiously and, according to it, with complete independence from political pressure, public sentiment or executive influence.

The group said the appellate court should use the opportunity to clarify the legal issues arising from the dispute, reconcile what it described as conflicting judicial pronouncements and strengthen public confidence in the courts.

"Nigeria's democracy cannot flourish where political disputes are resolved through conflicting judicial interpretations that leave citizens more confused than enlightened," the statement added, insisting that the rule of law should not become "a casualty of political expediency."

The Federal High Court judgment and the legal arguments advanced by HURIWA remain subject to the appellate process. At the time of filing this report, there was no immediate response from the court or other parties mentioned in the statement regarding the allegations raised by the association.