Anyanwu asks A’Court to quash his expulsion from PDP

From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

The leadership crisis rocking the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) took another dimension, following an appeal by its former National Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, asking the Court of Appeal to set aside a high court judgment affirming his expulsion from the party.

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), had, on January 12, 2026, affirmed the recommendation of the Chief Tom Ikimi-led National Disciplinary Committee (NDC) to expel Anyanwu from the party for anti-party activities.

However, Anyanwu in the notice of appeal filed on April 10, is urging the appellate court to set aside the judgment of the lower court and annul the recommended expulsion from the party.

The judgment, which has not been vacated or stayed has endangered the validity of the March 28 to 29, 2026 National Convention, which produced Abdulrahman Mohammed-led factional PDP leadership, following Anyanwu’s involvement in appointment of Mohammed as the faction’s acting National Chairman as well as his membership of Wike’s camp’s National Caretaker Working Committee that organised the convention.

The anxiety in the faction is compounded by the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which on March 9, affirmed the November 1, 2025 decision of the party’s NWC suspending Anyanwu as well as the faction’s National Legal Adviser, Kamaldeen Ajibade, National Organising Secretary, Bature Umar and National Auditor, Okechukwu Osuoha, from the party.

Members of the faction are apprehensive that Anyanwu signed the letter to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) appointing Mohammed as the acting National Chairman on November 3, 2025, while under suspension; a situation they fear may have jeopardised all other activities of the faction, including its National Convention, the composition of its National Working Committee and capacity to validly nominate candidates for election.

Chief Ikimi’s seven-member committee had, on March 10, 2025, recommended the expulsion of Senator Anyanwu from the PDP for anti-party activities, following findings arising from petitions by some party members.

Specifically, the report indicated that Anyanwu declined to appear before the committee.

However, challenging the recommendation of the National Disciplinary Committee, Anyanwu had dragged it and the party’s then National Working Committee chairman, Amb Iliya Umar Damagum, before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in suit No: CV/1050/2025 praying the Court to set aside the findings, decision and recommendation of the Committee on the ground that it lacked competence to determine allegations made against him.

Anyanwu also prayed the Court presided over by Justice Yusuf Halilu to invalidate the decision of the Committee claiming that it constituted a violation of his fundamental right to fair hearing under the constitution of the PDP.

However, in its judgment, the Court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction on the ground that Anyanwu’s claims were non-justiciable intra-party disputes while also affirming that they lacked merit. 

Dismissing the claims for lack of merit, the Court held that “a careful examination of the originating summons, the affidavit in support thereof and the documentary exhibits relied upon by the plaintiff showed that the plaintiff failed to establish any basis upon which this Court can interfere with the disciplinary proceedings of the second defendant

“The evidence before the court disclosed that the plaintiff was duly invited to appear before the National Disciplinary Committee of the second defendant but failed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded him. It is settled in law that a party who deliberately refuses or neglects to utilise an opportunity to be heard cannot subsequently complain of denial of fair hearing.

“Furthermore, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the National Disciplinary Committee acted outside the powers conferred on it by the Constitution of the second defendant and did not show that the procedures adopted were fundamentally defective or in breach of natural justice. Courts do not act as appellate bodies over the internal disciplinary mechanism of voluntary associations, once the procedure adopted substantially complies with the rules governing such bodies.

“The plaintiff, having alleged illegality, bias and unconstitutionally failed to place sufficient material before this court to justify the extraordinary intervention of the Court in the internal affairs of the second defendant,” the Court held.