“PDP in Turmoil: Legal, Political and Constitutional Questions Surrounding the Ibadan Convention and the Expulsion Saga” Dr. G. Fraser. MFR.
“No democracy can survive where court orders are ignored and due process is treated as optional. The PDP must respect its own constitution and the rule of law. Anything less is a mockery of the judiciary and a danger to our democratic ideals.” – Dr. G. Fraser. MFR.
The PDP has long been one of Nigeria’s dominant political parties since its formation in 1998, with its Constitution clearly stipulating structures, rights and internal disciplinary procedures. The Party Constitution states that “no member of the Party shall bring to public attention disagreements and conflicts within the Party unless expressly authorized” (Art. 6(2)(4)). It also lays out that the National Convention is the Party’s supreme organ and that the Party’s disciplinary powers must follow due process (Chapter 10, Disciplinary Procedure).
It is within that framework that the events of mid-November 2025 took place. At a convention held in Ibadan, Oyo State, the PDP announced the expulsion of Nyesom Wike (FCT Minister), Ayo Fayose (former Ekiti Governor), Senator Samuel Anyanwu (former National Secretary), and others for “anti-party activities”. The motion was reportedly moved by former National Chairman Olabode George and seconded by Governor Bala Mohammed.
However, several senior PDP governors and party leaders boycotted the convention, citing an existing court order restraining the holding of the convention. Among those boycotting were Bukola Saraki and Sule Lamido. The Convention was described by Wike’s camp as a “Stakeholders — caretaker meeting” rather than a properly constituted National Convention.
Legal & Constitutional Framework of the PDP
Under the PDP Constitution:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, there shall be a Disciplinary Committee of the Party at every level … the Committee shall inform the member in writing of the allegations made against him and the place and time of hearing the case.” (Chapter 10, Sec. 57(4)).
“Any member of the Party who commits any of the offences listed … shall be liable to … expulsion from the Party.” (Sec. 59(1)(g)).
Importantly, the Constitution states that “The decisions of the National Executive Committee shall be binding on all organs and members of the Party.” (Art. 7(2)).
Also, disciplinary action must flow from appropriate organs and often begins at the lowest level (e.g., the Ward) according to procedure, before rising to state and national organs.
Thus, the Party formally recognises that expulsion is possible, but only after: written notice of allegations, the right to hearing, fair process, and adherence to other procedural safeguards.
“Illegality at Ibadan? An Analysis of the Controversial PDP Convention and the Disputed Expulsion of Wike, Fayose and Others”- The National Patriots Movement.
Facts from the Ibadan Convention
The PDP announced expulsions at the November 15, 2025 convention in Ibadan.
The convention was held despite one or more court orders restraining the gathering.
Some governors, including Adamawa’s Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri (also the Convention Chairman), publicly rejected the expulsions, calling them “not in the best interest of the party”.
Wike reacted by calling the convention “Detty December in November” and dismissing the process as not serious.
Analysis: Legitimacy & Authenticity of the Expulsions
■ Legitimacy of the Convention
Because the convention was held despite court orders, its legitimacy is highly questionable. If the country’s courts have stayed or prohibited the meeting of a national organ of the party, decisions taken in defiance of the court appear open to challenge. In essence: the body that passed the motion may lack lawful authority.
■ Compliance with Disciplinary Procedure
The Party constitution requires written notice of allegations, an opportunity to be heard, and the establishment of a disciplinary committee. There is no credible public record at the time of writing that Wike, Fayose or Anyanwu received such written notice, were afforded a hearing or that ward-level petitions were processed before the expulsions. Without the minimum safeguards of natural justice (seen also in analogous jurisprudence) the expulsions risk being invalid. A general principle (as noted in case law elsewhere) holds: “When a body empowered to discipline a member fails to give that member a fair hearing, the sanction is void.”
■ Where must the action originate?
The PDP constitution stipulates that disciplinary measures should be initiated from the Ward where the person is registered, with incremental rights of appeal (Sec. 60–61). By contrast, the recent expulsions appear to have been moved at the national level without reference to prior ward or local petitions being processed. That departure from constitutionally required steps further undermines validity.
■ Comparisons with Similar Party Disputes
In previous intra-party disputes (e.g., PDP expulsions affirmed by courts in lesser publicised cases), courts have emphasised the necessity of due process and the authority of the organ taking the action. For example, a case involving the Southeast zone expulsion of one member held that the party must follow its constitution before expulsion. The present case echoes those standards: if the discipline process is flawed, a court may set it aside.
Implications & Political Context
Politically, the expulsions deepen factionalism within the PDP. The fact that major governors and members boycotted the convention suggests the Party is split into competing power blocs. The invocation of “caretaker stakeholders meeting” rather than a formally recognised convention further muddies the waters of legitimacy.
By attempting to expel senior figures like Wike and Fayose without clear adherence to the constitution, the George-led faction risks not only legal challenge but also reputational damage. A court could declare the expulsions null and void, restore membership and complicate any further internal election or candidacy process.
Moreover, the broader public may view the action as a power play rather than genuine discipline for anti-party behaviour. That risks alienating important constituencies and undermining the Party’s claim to unity, discipline and respect for rule-based governance.
“Discipline in any political party must follow lawful procedure. When leaders bypass their own constitution and defy court orders, they undermine the very foundation of democracy. For the sake of the rule of law, the PDP should retrace its steps and act within its legal boundaries.” – The National Patriots Movement
Conclusion
“When Due Process Fails: The Court Orders, Power Struggle and Constitutional Breaches Behind the PDP’s Latest Crisis”. – Headlinenews.news.
The PDP’s announcement that Nyesom Wike, Ayo Fayose, Samuel Anyanwu and others are expelled appears highly questionable — legally and procedurally. The convention that made the decision was held despite pending court orders; the disciplinary steps required under the Party’s Constitution (written notice, hearing, initiation at ward level) do not appear to have been followed; and major party leaders have dissociated themselves from the expulsions.
The upshot: the expulsions can be contested or ignored by aggrieved members and perhaps struck down by a court. For the PDP to re-establish its internal legitimacy it must urgently adhere to its constitution, suspend any flawed decisions until proper process is conducted, and ensure that all actions against members — no matter how senior — comply with the rule of law and the Party’s own rules.
In politics as in law: process matters as much as power. The PDP’s leadership would do well to remember that rushing to “discipline” without due process may win headlines today but courtrooms and narrative credibility tomorrow.
“Nigeria’s democracy depends on respect for due process. The PDP cannot expel members through shortcuts that violate its constitution and ignore the courts. Upholding the rule of law is not optional — it is the minimum standard for any credible democratic institution.” – Princess Adebajo-Fraser MFR.
Princess Gloria Adebajo-Fraser MFR.
The National Patriots Movement.
