The legal storm over the PDP Ibadan convention, by Oluwadare Ayeni
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) once stood as Africa’s largest and most organised political movement, a party of dreams built on internal balance and a long-standing unwritten understanding that Nigeria’s presidency should rotate between the North and the South. That fragile equilibrium began to crumble during the last PDP presidential primaries. Despite the fact that President Muhammadu Buhari, a northerner, had just completed his tenure, leading figures such as Alhaji Atiku Abubakar refused to concede the 2023 ticket to the South. The collapse of that informal rotational pact deepened internal mistrust and triggered the factional crisis that now haunts the party. The consequences of that decision continue to echo into the present moment — including the fierce legal battle surrounding the Ibadan convention.
As the party converged in Ibadan, the leadership under acting National Chairman Umar Damagum announced the suspension of Nyesom Wike’s loyalists, including some national officers, and referred them to the disciplinary committee. Almost immediately, multiple injunctions and counter-orders spilled from the courts. The tension raised an old but critical question: Can the PDP legally suspend senior members without strict compliance with its constitution and without giving them a fair hearing?
The courts have consistently answered this question in a manner unfavourable to the party leadership. In several notable decisions, including Ezekiel v. PDP, Omehia v. PDP, and Akinlade v. APC (though involving another party, but now frequently relied upon for principles of fair hearing in intra-party disputes), Nigerian courts held that political parties, though voluntary associations, must obey their own constitutions. These rulings emphasise that no member can be suspended or expelled without due process, proper notice, and an opportunity to defend themselves.
Most relevant are earlier federal and state court decisions specifically involving PDP attempts to discipline Wike or his supporters. In those cases, judges held that attempts to suspend Wike without granting him a fair hearing violated the principles of natural justice. The courts also ruled that any disciplinary action taken in defiance of the party’s constitutional procedures is automatically void. Other judgments have blocked the suspension of lawmakers aligned with Wike on the basis that a political party cannot arbitrarily curtail a member’s rights to political participation and association.
These legal precedents create a formidable barrier against the suspensions arising from the Ibadan convention. The speed and unilateral nature of the disciplinary actions suggest that the affected individuals were not given adequate notice, were not properly invited to defend themselves, and could therefore not have been subjected to genuine due process. Courts have already established that any suspension lacking those procedural safeguards is invalid, regardless of the political motivations behind it.
All of this means that while the Ibadan convention itself may stand, the suspensions announced around it almost certainly rest on shaky ground. Damagum’s faction may claim party authority, but the Nigerian judiciary has repeatedly demonstrated that political disputes cannot override constitutional procedure. As history shows, the courts are likely to intervene once again if the suspended members challenge the actions in court.
In old democracies and young alike, parties survive not on raw power but on adherence to rules, internal legitimacy, and predictability. The PDP’s failure to respect these principles threatens not only the individuals directly affected, but the credibility of the party itself. Legal scholars and practitioners observing the Ibadan saga note that a party that flouts its own constitution invites judicial intervention, and history suggests the courts will be compelled to act to preserve procedural fairness. The lesson is stark: authority without accountability is inherently unstable, and the political fortunes of Damagum’s faction may ultimately hinge less on declarations at a convention and more on the discipline of the courts.
The Ibadan convention thus becomes a cautionary tale. The suspensions of Wike, Fayose, and their allies, issued without proper notice and due process, are poised to collapse under the weight of judicial scrutiny. No faction, however assertive, can suspend senior members with impunity when the law and party constitution demand fairness. The courts have repeatedly affirmed that procedural violations cannot be masked by political expediency. In the end, the judiciary will likely restore the status of those unjustly targeted, reminding the PDP that its survival depends not on proclamations of authority, but on the unwavering application of its own rules. For Damagum’s faction, the message is unavoidable: power seized without process is power doomed to reversal.
Oluwadare Ayeni, PhD
Associate Professor of African Democracy and Public Governance
