By Ayo Kehinde
The leadership crisis within the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Rivers State deepened on Friday as the Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt upheld a High Court judgment nullifying the ward, local government, and state congresses that produced Chief Tony Okocha and members of his executive committee.
The appellate court’s decision represents a major setback for the Okocha-led faction of the party, which is aligned with the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, and has been embroiled in a protracted battle for control of the APC structure in Rivers State.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Elfreida Williams-Dawodu, the court dismissed an appeal filed by the Okocha-led executive challenging the jurisdiction of the Rivers State High Court to entertain the matter and issue orders restraining the conduct of the congresses.
The dispute originated on December 20, 2024, when Justice Godswill Obomanu of the Rivers State High Court issued an ex parte order restraining the APC from conducting its ward, local government, and state congresses pending the determination of a suit before the court.
Despite the subsisting order, the party proceeded with the congresses, which eventually produced Okocha and other members of the state executive committee.
The Emeka Beke-led faction subsequently returned to court, arguing that the congresses were conducted in defiance of a valid court order. The High Court thereafter nullified the congresses and all actions arising from them.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Okocha-led executive approached the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/PH/523/2026, contending that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the matter and was therefore not competent to issue the restraining order.
However, the appellate court rejected the argument and struck out the appeal for want of competence, effectively preserving the High Court’s order nullifying the congresses.
Confirming the judgment, counsel to the Emeka Beke-led APC, Emenike Ebete, said the decision of the appellate court means that the nullification of the congresses remains valid and binding.
“Before those congresses were conducted, the court gave an ex parte order restraining them from conducting the congresses. They disobeyed the order and went ahead to conduct ward, local government, and state congresses. So we returned to court and prayed that those congresses be nullified because they were conducted in violation of a court order, and the court granted the relief.
“They appealed against the ex parte order, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction and that the suit should be struck out. If that had happened, every consequential order, including the nullification of the congresses, would have collapsed. But the Court of Appeal held that the appeal was incompetent and struck it out. That means the High Court order nullifying the congresses still stands,” Ebete said.
Meanwhile, the Okocha-led APC executive has dismissed suggestions that the judgment threatens its continued existence, insisting that the matter remains pending before the lower court for substantive determination.
In a statement issued on Saturday, the Rivers APC Publicity Secretary, Chibike Ikenga, said the Court of Appeal’s ruling arose from an interlocutory appeal and that the substantive suit had been returned to the court of first instance for full trial.
“The Leadership of the All Progressives Congress, Rivers State, is aware of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt, dated Friday, May 29, 2026, in an interlocutory appeal and matter sent back to the Court of first instance for full trial in Appeal No. CA/PH/523/2024. There is no threat to the status of the EXCO pending full trial. Our lawyers will study the full judgment and advise on the next step,” Ikenga stated.
He urged party faithful to remain calm and avoid being swayed by what he described as deliberate misrepresentations of the court’s decision.
“We advise party faithful to remain calm and not panic by the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and circumstances of the judgment by those who lack in-depth knowledge of what transpired in the court,” he added.
