As the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) waits with cautious optimism the Supreme Court judgement on its contentious secretaryship position, ONYEKACHI EZE examines what may likely influence the court’s decision
Life is gradually returning to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) few days after the Supreme Court reserved judgement on the party’s contentious secretaryship position. On Wednesday, March 12, just two days after the apex court’s decision, the PDP National Working Committee (NWC) held its first physical meeting for the year.
And on Thursday, the party inaugurated the caretaker committee for South-South zonal executive. Despite the renewed activities, the situation in the party is still cautious optimism. Although it was a big relief for the party when the Supreme Court refused to grant Senator Samuel Anyanwu’s request for a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal judgement that sacked him as PDP National Secretary, there is still palpable suspense in the party.
Anyanwu had lost both at the High Court and the Court of Appeal, but the Supreme Court judgement is the final arbiter. Whatever decision arrived by the apex justices is the end of the matter, there will be no room for further appeal. A former National Publicity Secretary of the party, Kola Ologbondiyan, expressed the hope that the principle of parties being managers of their internal affairs, will rule at the end of the day.
PDP’s argument is that previous court judgements were that court cannot adjudicate in internal affairs of the party. For instance, Justice Amiru Sanusi of the Court of Appeal, in a judgement delivered on April 7, 2017, said “the law is trite that courts’ jurisdiction is ousted in matters dealing with internal affairs or resolution of a political party regarding nomination or leadership of … political party.”
The crux of the case adjudicated by the court then, was the issue of party leadership and conduct of party primary. The applicant in the matter had called on the court to declare that the governorship primaries held on December 8, 2014, which was conducted by the Deputy National Chairman of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), which was 2nd defendant, was in compliance with the party’s Constitution and Section 87(1), (4)(b) of the Electoral Act (As amended) and as such, it is valid, because the National Chairman was being restrained by an order of court.
He therefore prayed the court to mandate the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which is 1st defendant to recognise and publish his name as APGA’s valid candidate for the 2015 governorship election in Abia State having scored the highest number of lawful votes at the primary election.
The applicant also asked for a declaration that the second term of four years in office of the 4th defendant as the National Chairman of APGA expired on December 1, 2014 and he ceased to be the Chairman of the party from that day. Justice Clara Bata Ogunbiyi who delivered the lead judgement, said no court has jurisdiction to consider issues patterning to party leadership and membership “as they are not justiciable being issues that fall within the internal affairs of the party.”
He added that the appeal was predicated on non-compliance with the order of a court, party leadership and membership of a political party, and has nothing to do with non-compliance with the Electoral Act or the guidelines of a party. This appears to have a semblance with the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Anyanwu, PDP ousted National Secretary, had accused the National Vice Chairman (South East), Chief Ali Odefa, of forging the party’s 2022 electoral guideline to convince South East stakeholders to remove him as National Secretary. He alleged that Odefa printed fake electoral guidelines for primary election and took it to Enugu State governor, Peter Mbah.
“They went and (presented it at) a state High Court in Enugu and based on this fake document, the judge gave an order that I am supposed to have resigned,” he said. The Enugu High Court judgement, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division,on December 20, 2024, said it evaluated the provision of Section 47(5) & (6) of the 2017 PDP Constitution, which prohibits members of the NWC from holding dual offices.
The judgement which was delivered by Justice C. O. Ajah, added that “Pursuant to Section 84 (12) of the Electoral Act 2022, any aspirant who is a political appointee shall resign his appointment before the purchase of Expression of Interest and Nomination Forms.”
Anyanwu, at the time the PDP held its primary for the 2023 Imo State governorship election, was the party’s National Secretary. The judge had argued that PDP primary “will not have any free playing ground as (Anyanwu) the 3rd defendant will appoint his cronies and cohorts as the returning officers, screening committee members and Appeal Panels etc. in the same primary election he is a candidate.”
Thus, he added that it was the mischief, “Section 47(5) of the PDP Constitution of 2017, and Section 1 Part VII of the Electoral Guidelines for primary elections 2022 of the party seeks to forestall.”
In his evaluation of the provisions of the constitution, the trial judge said since Senator Anyanwu “is neither a civil servant nor a public servant under Section 318 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended); and since neither the Constitution of 2017 or Electoral Guidelines of 2022 of the 1st defendant (PDP), nor the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) contains any definition of the term ‘political office holder,’ and since the 3rd defendant is holding a political office in a political party being an organisation formed for political purposes, and the functions of the 3rd defendant includes political duties, and since Section 47(5) provides for the resignation of its officers at any level who intends to contest for an elective position in a general election, the 3rd defendant perfectly and squarely falls into the classification of ‘political appointee’ under Part VI Section 1 of the Electoral Guidelines for primary Elections 2022 and must resign or should be deemed to have resigned his appointment before he purchased his Expression of Interest and Nomination Forms under Section 47(5) of the Constitution of 2017 and Section 1 Part VII of the Electoral Guidelines for primary election 2022 of the 15 defendant.”
To do otherwise, the judge added, would give Anyanwu, as PDP National Secretary, “all the enormous powers he possesses and the finality and supremacy of the decisions of National Executive Committee, into a despotic emperor.
He will not be able to observe the rules of natural justice in the discharge of his duties as canvassed by the plaintiff in paragraph 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the supporting affidavit and would disqualify whoever wants to contest any position he is interested.” The judge said it is the intention of the makers of the PDP constitution that members of the executive committee at all levels who intend to contest an election into any elective office should resign his or her position before doing so.
When a similar case came before the apex court in 2017, the three-man panel of justices led by Walter Onnoghen, then Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), recognised the supremacy of convention of a political party. Justice Rhodes Vivour, who read the judgement, also explained that an officer could be removed after a period of two years.
“A national officer can be removed without a vote of no confidence. There can be no doubt that the National convention has enormous powers over the party,” the judge said, while citing Article 33 of the party’s constitution that provides for the supremacy of national convention.
The dispute then was the chairmanship of the PDP between Ahmed Makarfi and Ali Modu Sheriff. It was not the convention that replaced Anyanwu with Sunday Ude-Okoye, but the South-East stakeholders, the zone the office is microzoned to. The zone has continued to stand with Ude-Okoye since then.
Other organs of the party, including the NWC, Board of Trustees (BoT) and the PDP Governors’ Forum are with Ude-Okoye. As all parties in the matter await the verdict of the Supreme Court, it should be the noted that the apex court is not ruled by emotions. It evaluates the facts before it and gives its decision based on law.
