*Referred To Disciplinary Committee
*Says Judgment Stopping Convention An Assault On Nigeria’s Democracy
*George Slams Ruling, Wike’s Loyalists Hail Decision
THE National Working Committee (NWC) of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has suspended the party’s National Secretary, Samuel Anyanwu; Legal Adviser, Kamaldeen Ajibade; Deputy Legal Adviser, Okechukwu Osuoha; and National Organising Secretary, Umaru Bature, for one month.
This followed the judgment of a Federal High Court in Abuja stopping its planned 2025 national convention in Ibadan, Oyo State, which the party earlier described as an assault on Nigeria;s democracy.
In its ruling on Friday, October 31, Justice James Omotosho stopped PDP from holding the convention until it fully complies with the statutory requirements of the party, the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act.
a court ruling that halted the party’s planned national convention.
Addressing journalists on Saturday, November 1, in Abuja, PDP’s National Publicity Secretary, Debo Ologunagba, said the decision was the outcome of an emergency NWC meeting held earlier on Saturday at the party’s Legacy House in Abuja.
According to him: “The NWC, in line with the party’s constitution, came to the following conclusion: The National Legal Adviser, Kamaldeen Ajibade (SAN); Deputy Legal Adviser, Okechukwu Osuoha; National Secretary, Samuel Anyanwu; and National Organising Secretary, Umaru Bature, have been suspended for one month, and referred to the PDP Disciplinary Committee.”
The party had earlier described the judgment on Friday, October 31, stopping it from holding the convention until it fully complies with the statutory requirements of the party, the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act as an assault on Nigeria’s democracy.
Ruling on the suit filed by three aggrieved members of the party, Justice Omotosho also restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from accepting a report on the outcome of any national convention of the party without following the due process of the law, its guidelines and regulations.
He held that INEC was not entitled to give effect to the convention if a party had not done so in accordance with the Constitution, Electoral Act and the guidelines/regulations of political parties.
The plaintiffs had sought to stop the November 15 and 16 national convention scheduled for Ibadan to elect new national officers, on the grounds of breach of the party’s constitution.
They listed INEC; PDP; its National Secretary, Samuel Anyanwu; National Organising Secretary, Umar Bature; National Working Committee (NWC); National Executive Committee (NEC), Umar Damagum; Ali Odefa; and Emmanuel Ogidi as defendants.
However, PDP, in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Debo Ologunagba, on Friday, October 31, said it was appalled by the judgment, which it described as “an assault on Nigeria’s democratic process” and charged its members, chapters and organs to remain steadfast and focused on preparations towards the national convention.
PDP, vowing to challenge the judgment, said the ruling does not vitiate its ability to proceed with the processes and activities towards the convention to elect new national officers to pilot the affairs of the party for the next four years.
According to the statement: “Our party notes the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, which affirms the supremacy of a political party in the management of its internal affairs.
“The PDP, therefore, charges its members, chapters and organs to remain steadfast and focused on preparations towards the holding of the national convention of our party.
“Nevertheless, the PDP, as the leading opposition party in Nigeria committed to the rule of law, has accordingly directed its lawyers to take immediate action to appeal this judgment in our unwavering determination to uphold, defend and promote multi-party democracy in our country.”
In the same vein, a former deputy national chairman (South) of the party, Bode George, criticised the ruling as shocking and dangerous for Nigeria’s democratic stability, which could set a troubling precedent.
George argued that political parties must be allowed to manage their internal affairs without undue judicial interference, except in clear cases of constitutional breach, noting: “This judgment will consume this country. It is time the Judge removed his wig and gown and joined politics.”
The PDP chieftain, in a statement, urged the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and National Judicial Council (NJC) to address what he called an unjustifiable intervention capable of triggering disorder, insistinhg: “Judges are not politicians; their duty is to interpret the law, not to meddle in party administration.”
He wondered the basis of the ruling, as INEC monitored all PDP congresses nationwide and did not raise objections or report irregularities, adding: “INEC is not complaining. The Judge did not invite INEC officials.
“So, why is he complaining? Does he have a political interest?”
He noted that the ruling undermines party autonomy and risks weaponising the judiciary against political stability in Nigeria, stressing that resolving internal disputes through established party mechanisms remains fundamental to democratic development.
George charged PDP members to remain calm and committed to lawful processes, while pursuing legal remedies to upturn the ruling.
However, the group loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, lauded the judgment, saying it was a “victory against impunity” within the party.
Shortly after the ruling, Wike convened a meeting of PDP stakeholders and former governors loyal to him, where he praised the judgment as a blow against “lawlessness and impunity,” adding: “We are happy that we have fought impunity, but we are not happy with what is going on.
“The essence of opposition is to wrestle power from the ruling party. No opposition party carries on with impunity. We have to put our house together and follow due process.”
He commended the plaintiffs for being “brave enough to challenge illegality in court,” vowing that no one would be intimidated for standing up for what is right.
A communiqué issued at the end of the meeting, read by former Abia State governor, Okezie Ikpeazu, commended the judiciary for “restoring legality and confidence” in the PDP, even as it reaffirmed support for due process in the running of the party’s affairs.
Also at the meeting were former governor of Benue State, Samuel Ortom; Anyanwu; factional National Vice Chairman (South-South), Dan Orbih; and Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Martin Amaewhule.
The decision and position of the group may have led to the NWC meeting that suspended Anyanwo and the others.
Recall that another Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, had on the same day, refused to grant an application filed by former governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido, seeking an order restraining the party from going ahead with the convention.
Lamido, in the motion ex-parte moved by Jeph Njikonye (SAN), had prayed the court to make the interim order, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed alongside.
But Justice Lifu, in a ruling, ordered the defendants- PDP and INEC- to appear in court to show cause why Lamido’s reliefs should not be granted, in the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2299/2025.
The Judge gave the defendants 72 hours from the date they were served to respond and adjourned the matter until November 6 for hearing.
In the ex-parte motion, dated and filed on October 28, by his team of lawyers, Lamido sought an interim order restraining PDP from conducting the national convention in Ibadan or any other place or state or any other date(s), as well as an interim order restraining INEC from monitoring, supervising and recognising PDP national convention.
Lamidi gave seven grounds why his application should be considered, saying that once an action is pending in court, parties are bound to maintain status quo to avoid subjecting the court or the plaintiff to a fait accompli.
The former governor, who is aspiraing to contest for the post of national chairman, but could not obtain the form for the position before the deadline, said the court has an inherent jurisdiction to preserve the subject matter of litigation.
He explained that if PDP is not restrained by the court, it would be violating its constitution, and by implication denying him the opportunity to contest for the position, of which he is eminently qualified to contest, adding: “The plaintiff/applicant has established a prima facie legal interest in the subject matter of litigation entitling him to the grant of the interim preservative relief sought.”
The former governor said where an action sought to be restrained had already been completed, the equitable remedy of interim injunction may no longer be available to him; “hence this application is necessary at this stage.”
Njikonye argued that the plaintiff’s suit raises a serious triable issue, noting that balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of the interim preservative reliefs sought.
The Judge, after hearing the matter in his chamber, said: “The court has carefully perused and painstakingly considered the motion ex-parte, the affidavits, exhibits and the written address, including the decided cases commended to the court by learned senior advocate.
“I have equally advised myself on the issues raised in the originating summons, which, of course, raises triable issues.”
Justice Lifu also said the court was not unmindful of the balance of convenience and the undertaking as to damages, as held in the three cases cited,, adding: “I have also averted my mind to Order 26 Rules, 8(c) of the Rules of this court and the need to exercise my discretion judicially and judiciously.
“Consequently, considering the entire gamut of the entire suit, it is my considered view that Order 26 rule 8(c) of the 2019 Rules of this court be invoked to enable this court to balance the scale and equities of the parties.
“In that wise, the respondents in this suit are herein ordered to show cause within the next 72 hours, effective from the date and time of service of this order on them, why the prayers of the applicant should not be so granted.”
He subsequently adjourned the matter until November 6 for further proceedings.
