THIS DAWN — An Information and Perception Management Consultant, Mr. Emeka Oraetoka, has lamented how the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), once regarded as Africa’s largest political party, is at a crossroads between adherence to its constitutional framework and submission to the whims of self-proclaimed “stakeholders.”
The unfolding internal crisis exposed the tension between the rule of law and the rule of individuals—a struggle that now threatens the very foundation of the party.
At the core of the dispute lies a simple truth: every association, including a political party, operates under a legal framework.
The Nigerian Constitution—often referred to as the “grand norm”—serves as the supreme law of the land.
All other laws, including party constitutions, derive their legitimacy from it.
The PDP’s founding fathers understood this when they crafted a constitution to guide the party’s activities.
They defined its leadership structure and enshrined a zoning formula to ensure balance and fairness in the distribution of offices.
Disregard for party’s own constitution
For years, the party largely adhered to this internal rule book. However, the situation took a turn for the worse during the 2023 presidential primaries.
The leadership’s handling of that election was widely condemned for its apparent bias and disregard for the party’s own constitution.
Barrister Nyesom Wike, then governor of Rivers State, was one of the major contenders in that primary.
Despite what many saw as clear manipulation of the process to favor a predetermined candidate, Wike chose not to destabilize the party.
Instead, he appealed for respect for internal democracy and compliance with the constitution.
His appeal, however, was met with arrogance and silence.
Disillusioned by what they perceived as injustice, Wike and four other governors formed the now-famous “G5”—a coalition that actively opposed the PDP’s presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, in the 2023 general election.
The outcome was predictable: Atiku lost.
Deeper underground
Following that defeat, the PDP’s troubles deepened. The court’s removal of the then National Chairman, Iyorchia Ayu, opened a new chapter.
In line with the party’s constitution, the Deputy National Chairman (North), Amb. Iliya Damagun, stepped in as Acting Chairman.
Rather than use this opportunity to rebuild the party on the solid foundation of legality and fairness, Damagun embarked on what many describe as a campaign of selective enforcement—an experiment in “rule of stakeholders” over “rule of law.”
One of his earliest actions was the alleged witch-hunt of the National Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, a known ally of Wike.
In a move seen as both unconstitutional and vindictive, the Damagun faction replaced Anyanwu with Sunday Ude-Okoye from Enugu State.
The PDP constitution clearly stipulates that if a party officer vacates office before the end of tenure, the replacement must come from the same state and zone to maintain zoning balance.
Anyanwu is from Imo State; replacing him with someone from Enugu was therefore a clear violation.
Supreme Court intervenes
The Supreme Court later vindicated this position when it described Ude-Okoye as a “meddlesome interloper,” affirming that he could not hold the office of National Secretary.
The apex court reminded the party that while courts cannot impose leaders, they can insist that internal decisions align with the party’s constitution.
Despite this judicial clarification, the Damagun-led faction continued to act outside the law.
In their determination to purge the party of individuals perceived as loyal to Wike, they resorted to what the author terms “forgery-induced suspensions” and other extra-constitutional actions.
Their justification was always the same—“the stakeholders have agreed.”
Yet, nowhere in the PDP constitution is there a clause that replaces lawful procedure with the arbitrary will of “stakeholders.”
The crisis escalated with the controversial removal of the party’s National Legal Adviser.
In his place, Damagun’s group installed Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Chris Uche, who had represented Atiku Abubakar at the 2023 Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.
While Uche is widely respected for his brilliance and integrity, his acceptance of an office filled through irregular means raised questions about complicity in undermining the same laws he was trained to defend.
Pouring fuel to burning fire
Meanwhile, party elder Chief Bode George added fuel to the crisis by calling for the National Judicial Council (NJC) to sanction Justice James Omotosho, who halted the PDP’s planned November convention.
George accused the judge of interfering in the party’s internal affairs—ignoring the fact that the court’s ruling merely urged the party to settle its internal disputes in line with its constitution before convening any national convention.
The judgment did not impose any factional leadership; it only reaffirmed the supremacy of the party’s internal laws.
In apparent defiance, the Damagun faction sought an ex parte order from a court in Oyo State to proceed with the convention.
Many saw the move as “forum shopping” and another attempt to use the judiciary selectively to legitimize illegality.
Today, the PDP stands divided into two distinct camps: one advocating for the rule of law and the other operating under what has been dubbed the rule of stakeholders.
The latter represents the arbitrary decisions of individuals who view the party as personal property.
Meanwhile, the former calls for strict adherence to the constitution that once made the PDP a model of political order.
Rule of stakeholders versus rule of law
The ongoing battle within the PDP is not just about leadership; it is about the soul of the party.
If the rule of stakeholders triumphs over the rule of law, the PDP risks institutional decay and further loss of public confidence.
But if the constitution prevails, it could mark the beginning of a moral and structural rebirth.
As Emeka Oraetoka concludes, “Rule of law will always take precedence over the rule of forgery-induced stakeholders.”
For the PDP, and indeed for Nigeria’s democracy, that assertion may prove to be more than a moral statement.
It could well determine the survival of one of the country’s most influential political institutions.
