Headline

PDP Boils Again!

Published

5 months ago

October 5, 2025

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

The more the embattled main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) attempt to find a solution to its myriad of internal changes, the more they plunge deeper into crisis.

With weeks to the much advertised November convention, all seems not to be well with the once biggest party in Africa as the crisis is presently pitched between two of the most important officers of the party; the Chairman, Alhaji Umar Iliya Demagum and the National Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu. Both are locked in supremacy battle.

Recall that not long ago, the party made some consessions in a bid to end its long drawn crises, a fallout of the 2023 election loss, reconcile and encourage everyone to shealth their swords. Consequently, Demagum was made the substantive chairman while Senator Anyanwu was recognized as the authentic Secretary. The party concluded the rebranding moves by zoning the 2027 presidential slot to the south, prompting the likes of Bauchi State Governor, Bala Mohammed, to abandon his presidential ambition.

The party got enmeshed in troubled waters when it replaced Anyanwu as a result of his involvement in the Imo gubernatorial election, claiming that his duties were neglected. But Anyanwu had insisted on returning to his position after the failed effort to be Imo governor. But the party had refused before peace was brokered, creating a room for him to return as secretary, aided by the former governor of Rivers State, who is now as Federal Capital Territory minister, Nyesom Wike.

But a fresh crisis suddenly raised its head to return the party to a path they seem to have left. It was the Akwa-Ibom question.

The fresh crisis began when the Party dissolved the Akwa Ibom State Executive Committee and approved caretaker committees to run the affairs of both its Akwa Ibom and Cross River state chapters, in a major shake-up of the party’s structures in the South-South.

This was announced in a statement signed by the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Hon. Debo Ologunagba, on behalf of the National Working Committee (NWC).

Ologunagba insisted that the decisions were taken pursuant to the powers conferred on the NWC under the PDP Constitution (as amended in 2017).

“The National Working Committee (NWC) of our great Party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has at its meeting today, Tuesday, September 30th, 2025, pursuant to its powers under the Constitution of the PDP (as amended in 2017) approved the dissolution of the Akwa State Executive of the Party,” Ologunagba said.

The statement informed that for the Akwa Ibom branch, the NWC approved a 31-member caretaker committee to oversee the party’s affairs for a period not exceeding three months, or until new elections are held.

The committee is chaired by Igwat Umoren, with Harrison Ekpo as deputy chairman and Borono Bassey as secretary. Other key officers named include Bar. Ewa Okpo as publicity secretary, Emman Mbong as organizing secretary, Hon. Aniekan Asuquo as youth leader, Mary Silvia Abara as woman leader, and Barr. Enoch Enoch as legal adviser.

In the Cross River axis, the NWC said the decision followed the expiration of the four-year tenure of the state executive.

An 18-member caretaker committee, led by Rt. Hon. Bassey Eko Ewa as chairman and Dr. Bassey Joseph Adim as secretary, will assume control of the chapter with effect from October 1, 2025, for a similar three-month period.

“The Caretaker Committee is to manage the affairs of the Party in Cross River State from Wednesday, October 1st, 2025 for a period not exceeding 3 months, or until such a time a new State Executive Committee will be elected in the State,” Ologunagba said.

But Anyanwu, in a swift reaction, countered Ologunagba’s statement, dismissing it as “null and void,” insisting the National Working Committee (NWC) never approved such action, but the party through Ologunagba said otherwise. It is important to note that Ologunagba acted on behalf of the NWC, which the Chairman, Demagum heads. Anyanwu’s rejection of the action is deemed as a challenge to the authority of the party chairman.

In a statement, the PDP National Secretary noted as follows:

“My attention has been drawn to the purported press release by the National Publicity Secretary of our party announcing the dissolution of the State Working Committee of Akwa Ibom State.

“For purposes of clarity, that press release should be discountenanced because there was no formal sitting of the National Working Committee in which such decision was taken.

“It is not in the official capacity and duties of the National Publicity Secretary to take actions relating to the implementation of the decisions of the National Working Committee of our great party. As a result, the purported press release is null and void and of no effect. The state working committee of the PDP Akwa Ibom State stands undissolved.

“Please consider this letter as the rightful authority for you to continue in your duties as provided in the PDP Constitution 2017 as amended.”

Supporting the position of the national secretary, the removed Akwa Ibom chairman, Elder Aniekan Akpan, after an emergency meeting of the state executive committee in Uyo, declared that he remained the authentic state chairman.

Addressing the press, he urged party members and the public to disregard the dissolution notice, insisting the NWC had not properly sat to make such a decision.

To further contradict the stand of the NWC, one of the elected state exco members listed in the caretaker committee, Ekpong Edem, also rejected his inclusion, describing the new committee as “illegal.”

Edem pledged loyalty to the Akpan-led executive where he currently serves as Senatorial Vice Chairman.

At the end of its meeting, the state executive committee passed a vote of confidence in Akpan, further deepening the rift over the disputed dissolution, and creating wilder gulf between Demagum and Anyanwu.

But reacting, the party came down heavily on members, cautioning them against divided loyalty ahead of its much-publicised national convention.

At an interactive session held in Abuja, Hon Ologunagba, restated that the party’s constitution forbids dual party membership and unauthorised actions capable of undermining internal cohesion within its rank. He denied speculation of internal conflict ahead of the convention slated for the15–16 November 2025, PDP cautioned members from Akwa-Ibom state, where conflicting statements from the party hierarchy over the dissolution of the state chapter has continued to surface in the media.

Ologunagba noted that “Our constitution does not allow anyone to belong to two parties at once, and we will not tolerate actions that undermine unity.

“What some see as conflict is, in fact, democracy in action. The national chairman provides overall leadership and can summon meetings, while the national secretary carries out administrative duties. The secretary cannot unilaterally call meetings or release statements without approval,” he said.

Citing Section 35 of the PDP Constitution (2017 as amended), which outlines the functions of the National Chairman, the spokesman stated further: “There shall be a National Chairman who shall be the chief executive of the Party and his functions shall be:

“35 (1) (a) summon and preside over the meetings of the National Convention, the National Executive Committee, the National Caucus and the National Working Committee of the Party;

“35 (1) (d) assign specific functions to any member or officer of the Party.”

Meanwhile, the PDP has played down the crisis, insisting that the scenario was just a misunderstanding of roles within the party.

Ologunagba, in another statement, explained that there is no leadership tussle, adding that the duties of Anyanwu, are limited to handling minor administrative issues such as diesel supply and parking space allocation at the party’s national secretariat in Abuja.

Ologunagba said recent media reports suggesting a rift among party leaders are exaggerated and do not reflect the true situation. According to him, the PDP remains united and focused on repositioning itself ahead of future elections.

Ologunagba explained that the situation, being described as a crisis, was merely a misunderstanding about who is responsible for what in the day-to-day running of the party. He said some people may have misinterpreted normal administrative functions as a power struggle.

“There is no crisis in our great party. What we have is a simple issue of clarification about who performs certain administrative roles,” he said. “Senator Anyanwu’s functions have been clearly defined. He is only to oversee logistical issues like diesel supply and parking arrangements within the party secretariat. There is no confusion about that.”

Ologunagba accused some media outlets of sensationalising routine party matters, saying that journalists should be more careful when reporting internal issues. “Some reports have blown things out of proportion. The PDP is not at war with itself,” he said. “The so-called crisis is simply an administrative adjustment which happens in every organisation. We are united, strong, and ready to serve Nigerians better.”

The PDP spokesperson also accused rival parties of sponsoring misleading stories to create the impression that the PDP is in disarray. He claimed that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is particularly threatened by the renewed unity within the PDP, especially as the opposition begins consultations ahead of the next general election.

“The APC knows that the PDP is their only real competition,” Ologunagba said. “That is why they are trying to plant stories about imaginary crises. Nigerians are wiser now; they know who truly represents their interests.”

Ologunagba also alleged that the dissolved executives were under the influence of Pastor Umo Eno, the governor of Akwa Ibom, who had defected from the PDP to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

“In Akwa Ibom state, the governor has left. At both the national working committee and party level, there seems to be no distinction between the state executives and their alignment with the All Progressives Congress, APC,” he said.

“Section 10, sub-section 6 of the party constitution states, ‘No member of the party shall align with other parties or groups to undermine the party or any of its selected governments. Belonging to two parties is an anathema.’

“We believe the Akwa Ibom executives are controlled by the governor who joined the APC. He openly said on tape that he would oversee both parties, which is unacceptable and undermines the PDP.”

For more than two decades, the PDP has dominated Akwa Ibom politics, but it lost control in June after the governor defected to the APC.

Eno became the second PDP governor in the south-south region, after Sheriff Oborevwori of Delta, to defect to the APC within two months, raising concerns about party cohesion.

Four months after his defection, the PDP dissolved its state executives in Akwa Ibom to “restore order, reassert control, and prevent further erosion of its structure” in the state.

For a while now, the PDP has struggled to revalidate itself with mass defections depleting its workforce and membership. In recent times, majority of its high ranking members including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, had left to form a coalition under the umbrella of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

How PDP can snap out of its present quagmire to present a formidable opposition against the ruling APC still remains to be seen, but time will tell.

Headline

Opposition Parties Reject 2026 Electoral Act, Demand Fresh Amendment

Published

13 hours ago

February 26, 2026

Eric

Opposition political parties have rejected the 2026 Electoral Act recently passed by the National Assembly, which President Bola Tinubu swiftly signed into law.

The parties called on the National Assembly to immediately begin a fresh amendment process to remove what they described as “all obnoxious provisions” in the law.

Their position was made known at a press briefing themed “Urgent Call to Save Nigeria’s Democracy,” held at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel in Abuja on Thursday.

In a communiqué read by the Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) Ahmed Ajuji, the opposition leaders stated:

“We demand that the National Assembly immediately commence a fresh amendment to the Electoral Act 2026, to remove all obnoxious provisions and ensure that the Act reflects only the will and aspiration of Nigerians for free, fair, transparent and credible electoral process in our country. Nothing short of this will be acceptable to Nigerians.”

Some of the opposition leaders present in at the event include former Senate President David Mark; former Governor of Osun State, Rauf Aregbesola; former Vice President Atiku Abubakar; former Governor of Rivers State, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi; and former Governor of Anambra State, Peter Obi, all from the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The National Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), Ahmed Ajuji, and other prominent members of the NNPP, notably Buba Galadima, were also in attendance.

The coalition said the amended law, signed by Bola Tinubu, contains “anti-democratic” clauses, which they argue may weaken electoral transparency and public confidence in the voting system.

At the centre of the opposition’s concerns is the amendment to Section 60(3), which allows presiding officers to rely on manual transmission of election results where there is communication failure.

According to the coalition, the provision weakens the mandatory electronic transmission of results and could create loopholes for manipulation.

They argued that Nigeria’s electoral technology infrastructure is sufficient to support nationwide electronic transmission, citing previous assurances by officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The parties also rejected the amendment to Section 84, which restricts political parties to direct primaries and consensus methods for candidate selection.

They described the change as an unconstitutional intrusion into the internal affairs of parties, insisting that indirect primaries remain a legitimate democratic option.

The opposition cited alleged irregularities in the recent Federal Capital Territory local government elections as evidence of what they described as a broader pattern of electoral compromise.

They characterised the polls as a “complete fraud” and said the outcome has deepened their lack of confidence in the ability of the electoral system to deliver credible elections in 2027.

The coalition also condemned reported attacks on leaders of the African Democratic Congress in Edo State, describing the incidents as a serious threat to democratic participation and political tolerance.

They warned that increasing violence against opposition figures could destabilise the political environment if not urgently addressed.

In their joint statement, the opposition parties pledged to pursue “every constitutional means” to challenge the Electoral Act 2026 and safeguard voters’ rights.

“We will not be intimidated,” the leaders said, urging civil society organisations and citizens to support efforts aimed at protecting Nigeria’s democratic system.

On February 18, 2026, President Bola Tinubu signed the Electoral Act (Amendment) 2026 into law following its passage by the National Assembly. The Act introduced several reforms, including statutory recognition of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and revised election timelines.

However, opposition figures such as Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi have also called for further amendments, particularly over the manual transmission fallback clause, which critics say leaves room for manipulation.

The president said the law will strengthen democracy and prevent voter disenfranchisement.

Tinubu defended manual collation of results, questioned Nigeria’s readiness for full real-time electronic transmission, and warned against technical glitches and hacking.

The Electoral Act sparked intense debate in the National Assembly over how election results should be transmitted ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Civil society groups under the “Occupy NASS” campaign demanded real-time transmission to curb manipulation.

In the Senate, lawmakers clashed during consideration of Clause 60, which allows manual transmission of results if electronic transmission fails.

Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe (ADC, Abia South) demanded a formal vote to remove the proviso permitting manual transmission, arguing against weakening real-time electronic reporting.

The move led to a heated exchange on the floor, with Senate President Godswill Akpabio initially suggesting the demand had been withdrawn.

After procedural disputes and a brief confrontation among senators, a division was conducted. Fifteen opposition senators voted against retaining the manual transmission proviso, while 55 supported it, allowing the clause to stand.

Earlier proceedings had briefly stalled during clause-by-clause review, prompting consultations and a closed-door session.

In the House of Representatives, a similar disagreement came up over a motion to rescind an earlier decision that mandated compulsory real-time electronic transmission of results to IReV.

Although the “nays” were louder during a voice vote, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas ruled in favour of rescinding the decision, triggering protests and an executive session.

Headline

AFP: How Tinubu’s Govt Paid Boko Haram ‘Huge’ Ransom, Released Two Terrorists for Kidnapped Saint Mary’s Pupils

Published

3 days ago

February 24, 2026

Eric

The Nigerian government paid Boko Haram militants a “huge” ransom of millions of dollars to free up to 230 children and staff the jihadists abducted from a Catholic school in November, an AFP investigation revealed Monday.

Two Boko Haram commanders were also freed as part of the deal, which goes against the country’s own law banning payments to kidnappers. The money was delivered by helicopter to Boko Haram’s Gwoza stronghold in northeastern Borno state on the border with Cameroon, intelligence sources told AFP.

The decision to pay the militants is likely to irritate US President Donald Trump, who ordered air strikes on jihadists in northern Nigeria on Christmas Day and has been sent military trainers to help support Nigerian forces.

Nigerian government officials deny any ransom was paid to the armed gang that snatched close to 300 schoolchildren and staff from St. Mary’s boarding school in Papiri in central Niger state on November 21. At least 50 later managed to escape their captors.

Boko Haram has not been previously linked to the kidnapping, but sources told AFP one of its most feared commanders was behind the mass abduction: the notorious jihadist known as Sadiku.

He infamously held up a train from the capital in 2022 and netted hefty ransoms for the release of government officials and other well-off passengers.

Boko Haram, which has waged a bloody insurgency since 2009, is strongest in northeast Nigeria.

But a cell in central Niger state operates under Sadiku’s leadership. The St. Mary’s pupils and staff were freed after two weeks of negotiations led by Nuhu Ribadu, Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, with the government insisting no ransom was paid. Nigeria’s State Security Service flatly denied paying any money, saying “government agents don’t pay ransoms”.

However, four intelligence sources familiar with the talks told AFP the government paid a “huge” ransom to get the pupils back. One source put it at 40 million naira per head – around $7 million in total.

Another put the figure lower at two billion naira overall. The money was delivered by chopper to Ali Ngulde, a Boko Haram commander in the northeast, three sources told AFP.

Due to the lack of communications cover in the remote area, Ngulde had to cross into Cameroon to confirm delivery of the ransom before the first group of 100 children were released.

Nigeria has long been plagued by mass abductions, with criminals and jihadist groups sometimes working together to extort millions from hostages’ families, and authorities seemingly powerless to stop them.

Source: Africanews

Headline

Unlawful Invasion: El-Rufai Drags ICPC, IGP, Others to Court, Demands N1bn Damages

Published

4 days ago

February 23, 2026

Eric

Former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, has slammed a ₦1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for what he claimed was an unlawful invasion of his Abuja residence.

El-Rufai, in a suit filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, also listed the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District; Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.

According to the suit filed through his lawyers, led by Oluwole Iyamu, El-Rufai prayed the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT (2nd respondent), authorising the search and seizure at his residence as invalid, null and void.

Security operatives had stormed and searched the former Governor’s residence in the ongoing investigations against him.

However, he argued in the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, that the search was in violation of Section 37 of the Constitution, and urged the court to declare that the search warrant was “null and void for lack of particularity, material drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, overbreadth, and absence of probable cause thereby constituting an unlawful and unreasonable search.”

In the suit dated and filed February 20 by Iyamu, ex-governor, who is currently under detention, sought seven reliefs.

He prayed the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on Feb. 19 at about 2pm and executed by agents of ICPC and I-G, “under the aforesaid invalid warrant, amounts to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.”

He urged the court to declare that “any evidence obtained pursuant to the aforesaid invalid warrant and unlawful search is inadmissible in any proceedings against the applicant, as it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.”

El-Rufai, therefore, sought an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further relying on, using, or tendering any evidence or items seized during the unlawful search in any investigation, prosecution, or proceedings involving him.

“An order directing the Ist and 3rd respondents (ICPC and I-G) to forthwith return all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof.

“An order awarding the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, and the resultant psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.”

The breakdown of the ₦1 billion in damages includes “a N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress, and loss of personal security;

“A ₦400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies and vindicate the applicant’s rights.

“A ₦300 million as aggravated damages for the malicious, high-handed and oppressive nature of the respondents’ actions, including the use of a patently defective warrant procured through misleading representations.”

He equally sought ₦100 million as the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and associated expenses.

Iyamu argued that the search warrant was fundamentally defective, lacking specificity in the description of items to be seized, containing material typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, overbroad directives, and no verifiable probable cause.

He added that the warrant violated Sections 143-148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences (ICPC) Act, 2000, and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusions and several other constitutional provisions.

“Section 146 stipulates that the warrant must be in the prescribed form, free from defects that could mislead, but the document is riddled with errors in the address, date, and district designation;

“Section 147 allows direction to specified persons, but the warrant’s indiscriminate addressing to “all officers is overbroad and unaccountable.

“Section 148 permits execution at reasonable times, but the contradictory language creates ambiguity, undermining procedural clarity,” he submitted.

Iyamu stated that the execution of the invalid warrant on Feb. 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s premises, constituting violations of the rights to dignity (Section 34), personal liberty (Section 35), fair hearing (Section 36), and privacy (Section 37) of the Constitution.

He further argued that the search was conducted without legal justification and in a manner that inflicted humiliation and distress.

“Evidence obtained without a valid warrant is unlawful and inadmissible, as established in judicial precedents such as C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137, where the court ruled that evidence procured through improper means contravenes fundamental rights and must be excluded,” he said.

In the affidavit in support of the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, averred that on Feb. 19 at about 2p.m., officers from the ICPC and Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence under a purported search warrant issued on or about Feb. 4.

According to him, the said warrant is invalid due to its lack of specificity, errors, and other defects as outlined in the grounds of this application.

He said the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”

Shaba stated that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as provided by the law before proceeding with the search.

“That the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district wherein he sits.

“That during the invasion, the officers searched the applicant’s premises without lawful authority, seized personal items including documents and electronic devices, and caused the applicant undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.

“Now shown to me and marked as ‘EXHIBIT B’ Is the list of the items carted away.

“That no items seized have been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence.

“That the applicant suffered violations of his constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good faith to enforce same,” Shaba said.

Source: Naijanews.com