PDP: How state congresses reopened old wounds
yarkarkara
By Clifford Ndujihe & Luminous Jannamike
FOR the main opposition Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, the state congresses slated for late September 2025 were supposed to solidify control of state chapters, reconfigure leadership, and restore internal coherence ahead of the national convention in November.
Read Also: Boko Haram chose Buhari to negotiate with my government — Jonathan
However, they have reopened old leadership wounds and exposed the deep fractures in the party: feuds at the top, inconsistent messaging, clashing loyalties, and doubts about procedural legitimacy.
Rather than being organizational stepping stones, these congresses turned into flash-points for unresolved disputes—especially around the national secretariat, the role of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and conflicting authority between organs of the PDP.
Damagum vs Anyanwu
Now, the National Chairman, Umar Damagum, and National Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, are at daggers drawn, each citing provisions of the party’s amended 2017 constitution as back-up.
Within two days, things degenerated so fast that some observers feared that the November 15-16 National convention in Ibadan, Oyo State might be affected.
Anyanwu voids dissolution of Akwa Ibom exco
The crisis took a dramatic turn on Wednesday when Senator Anyanwu declared that the Akwa Ibom State Working Committee of the PDP remained undissolved, openly countering a press release earlier issued by the National Publicity Secretary, Debo Ologunagba.
In a letter dated October 1, 2025, and addressed to the Akwa Ibom State PDP Chairman, Aniekan Akpan, the national secretary insisted that the purported dissolution should be disregarded, stressing that no formal meeting of the National Working Committee, NWC, was held to authorise such a decision. “For purposes of clarity, that press release should be discountenanced, because there was no formal sitting of the National Working Committee in which such a decision was taken,” he wrote.
Anyanwu accused the National Publicity Secretary of exceeding his mandate by attempting to enforce a decision that had no backing from the NWC.
“It is not in the official position 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,” Anyanwu stated.
Declaring the authority of the Akwa Ibom State leadership intact, he affirmed that the State Working Committee ‘stands undissolved.’ “You are hereby directed to continue in your duties as provided in the PDP Constitution 2017 as Amended,” he concluded in the letter to Akpan.
Damagum undermining my office — Anyanwu
Undone, Senator Anyanwu in a letter to Damagum, which was published as an advertorial on Thursday, alleged that the national chairman was undermining his office contrary to Section 36 of the PDP Constitution and urged him to desist in the interest of the party.
Regarding the Akwa Ibom clash, he wrote: “It has become imperative to formally bring to your attention the violation of the provisions of the PDP Constitution, 2017 as amended. And the constant infraction of the duties of the office of the national secretary.
“Section 36 (1) b and e of the PDP Constitution 2017 as amended clearly states inter alia: b) that the National Secretary shall “conduct or direct the conduct of the correspondences of the Party and cause to be issued notices of meetings of the National Convention, National Executive Committee, National Caucus and national Working Committee: and e) shall ensure the implementation of the decisions and directives of the National Convention, National Executive Committee, National Caucus, and ensure that all units of the party carry out their duties promptly and efficiently.
“Instructively, the duties of issuing notices of meetings and implementations of the decisions or resolutions of the NWC are within the purview of the office of the national secretary.
“Regrettably, you have disregarded these provisions of the constitution without recourse to the legal implications of your actions. You should be aware that any action or decisions purportedly reached by an illegally constituted NWC is null and void and of no effect. Note further, that the purported press statement issued by the National Publicity Secretary as regards the dissolution of Akwa Ibom and Cross River State Working committees and replacing them with caretaker committees is a nullity because the notice of the NWC meeting purportedly held on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 was not issued by me.
“The decision to undermine the duties of my office as provided by the party constitution is provocative and grossly unacceptable by me.”
Damagum counters
Citing Section 35 of the party’s constitution, the National Publicity Secretary, Debo Ologunagba said the national chairman was right on his decisions and the NWC’s action on Akwa Ibom was legal
Clarifying the hierarchy on Thursday, Ologunagba cited Section 35 of the PDP Constitution (2017 as amended), which outlines the functions of the National Chairman.
According to the provision: “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.”
On the Akwa Ibom crisis, the PDP insisted that its decisions stand, warning members against promoting parallel narratives. “The meeting that produced the party’s position was properly convened, with records and videos to prove it. Anyone claiming otherwise is misleading the public,” Ologunagba added.
Turning to the November convention, he assured members and Nigerians that preparations remain on track. “Every chapter is involved, our leaders across the country are working together, and preparations are on course. There is no threat to the process. Nigerians can rest assured that on 15–16 November 2025, the convention will take place as scheduled,” he stated.
Early signs of conflict
The clearest sign that the congresses would be contested came when the PDP national leadership dispatched contradictory letters to the Independent National Electoral Commission. National Chairman Umar Damagum, via a letter dated September 26, notified INEC that the state congresses in Plateau, Cross River and Kebbi had been postponed due to “operational logistic challenges.” He framed the communication as informational, not as a formal notice of congress.
Within 24 hours, National Secretary Senator Anyanwu issued his own letter to INEC reaffirming that the congresses would proceed as scheduled, and explicitly urged INEC to ignore the chairman’s letter: “The earlier letter signed by the National Chairman should be ignored,” he said.
The basis for Anyanwu’s rebuttal was partly procedural: he contended that any official communication to INEC must bear the joint signatures of the National Chairman and National Secretary, and that a letter from the Chairman alone was deficient and invalid. This standoff became a tangible manifestation of a deeper struggle over control of the PDP’s machinery.
Deeper fault lines
The presidency of Damagum is itself a contested terrain. Since the ouster of Iyorchia Ayu, the party has been struggling to maintain unity and the National Secretary slot has been a recurring point of internal warfare. Some factions accuse Damagum of overreach and of running the party unilaterally; his critics point to repeated missteps in procedure and communication.
Anyanwu, aligned with a cluster of PDP governors and loyalists, has asserted that the position of National Secretary is sacrosanct under the party constitution and cannot be casually altered without NEC (National Executive Committee) approval. The congress conflict thus became a proxy for the contest for the soul of the PDP, and an assertion of who controls the narrative and legal parameters.
Disputes in states
While the “Damagum /Anyanwu” drama drew headlines, the real disruption was at state centres, where local chapters asserted autonomy, resisted national diktats, or litigated outcomes.
Below are three illustrative cases.
Cross River war of authority
In Cross River State, sections of the national leadership attempted to dissolve the sitting State Working Committee (SWC) before the end of its term and install a caretaker committee. The national publicity secretary (unsigned) released a press statement postponing the state congress and directing that the zonal caretaker take over pending fresh elections.
But SWC Chairman Venatius Ikem rejected that move. He insisted the congress would proceed on September 27 as fixed, arguing that the national organ (NWC) lacked the constitutional authority to override NEC’s decision or to preempt state-level arrangements. Ikem further presented documentation to assert that his tenure would expire only on September 29, not before, and threatened legal action against attempts to dissolve the SWC prematurely. Thus, Cross River became a microcosm of the larger tug-of-war: national versus state authority, timetable claims, and procedural legitimacy.
Looming postponement in Plateau, Kebbi
Though less detail has emerged publicly, the three states named in Damagum’s postponement letter—Plateau, Kebbi and Cross River—were tied together in the conflicting communications. In Plateau and Cross River, the party formally postponed congresses. In Plateau, the postponement followed the same narrative: “unforeseen circumstances and operational logistic challenges.”
Whether local chapters accepted or resisted the postponement is less documented, but the dual letters to INEC show that those states became battlegrounds for top-level legitimacy rather than sites of peaceful internal renewal.
Delayed congresses, litigation, NEC pressure
Beyond the three states, Congresses in Abia and Ebonyi remain pending, blamed on litigation and logistical constraints. In several states (Benue, Ekiti, Kano, Kaduna, Nasarawa, Niger, Ogun, Sokoto), congresses were in progress or had been scheduled, but delayed reporting and unresolved litigation forced the PDP to postpone its NEC meeting, originally slated for late September.
A key source within the party suggested that the NEC rescheduling was done to “allow congress reports from eight states” to catch up, but critics rounded on the move, accusing national actors of using delays strategically to exert influence over favorable state outcomes.
Thus, the congress crisis was not confined to a few states, but spread across a myriad of PDP chapters struggling with internal bickering, legal injunctions, and uncoordinated national directives.
INEC’s rejection of PDP notices
This is not the first time PDP has tangled with INEC over signatures and procedural compliance. In June 2025, INEC rejected the PDP’s notice for its 100th NEC meeting on technical grounds: the letter was signed only by Acting National Chairman Damagum, without the co-signature of the National Secretary. The electoral body referred to Part 2(12)3 of the “Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties, 2022,” which mandates that notices of conventions, congresses or meetings must be jointly signed by both the Chairman and the Secretary.
PDP’s National Publicity Secretary, Ologunagba, rejected INEC’s interpretation, insisting that INEC has no role in dictating internal party affairs, especially where no election of officers is involved.
This doctrinal conflict highlights a recurring tension: INEC views itself as a regulator tasked with ensuring party compliance; PDP leaders see such interference as overreach into internal affairs.
Signatory battle
A recurring grievance from Anyanwu’s faction is that INEC, by rejecting letters without the Secretary’s co-signature, tacitly privileges one faction over another. In that light, Anyanwu’s September letter to INEC specifically states that communications lacking both signatures “should not be honoured.”
This raises the possibility that INEC might be forced to adjudicate which national letter is valid—a choice that, for a “neutral” umpire, is fraught with political optics.
Courts orders, contempt
In some zones, internal disputes spilled into courtrooms. As early as February 2025, the counsel for one PDP member had written to both INEC and the PDP’s Southeast Zonal Secretary, warning them against contempt of a subsisting High Court order forbidding the PDP from conducting the Southeast zonal congress.
In other instances, litigants sought to restrain or nullify state congresses, especially where internal claimants challenged the legitimacy of sitting executives or caretaker committees. The PDP therefore has been navigating overlapping fault lines: internal constitutional claims, partisan power struggles, INEC technicality, and court injunctions.
Litmus test
The September congress saga underscores how the PDP has drifted from disciplined chain-of-command to fragmented camp politics. Instead of unity-building, congress planning has become a litmus test of loyalty or subordination.
The fact that top leaders felt compelled to issue conflicting letters to INEC reveals how weak the party’s internal consensus has become.
Erosion of institutional credibility
When public-facing party organs cannot coordinate or agree on basic administrative steps, temptation brews for cynicism. If the opposition behaves in a manner that invites skepticism, the ruling party and its supporters will seize the narrative of “disorder, incapacity, illegitimacy.”
PDP’s critics can—and no doubt will—portray the party as inconsistent, legally vulnerable, and helpless in the face of internal discord.
Risk for state chapters
State chapters that were gearing up for congress found themselves caught between local loyalties and national dictates that lacked clarity. Some may choose to ignore national postponements; others may yield and allow caretakers to take over. The result is uncertainty for grassroots members over whose flag to wave.
The Cross River case exemplifies how a state chapter can assert autonomy against national edicts. But not all chapters have the structural confidence or internal cohesion to do so.
INEC’s discretionary role
INEC now faces the dilemma of which letters to recognise, and whether to act on notifications that may be contradictory or procedurally flawed. Its responses—accept, reject, or delay—could tip the balance inside the PDP.
Implication for national convention
The congress impasse also imperils the PDP’s national convention timetable. The NEC meeting initially scheduled for September was postponed, largely because some state congresses had not delivered reports.
Delay or chaos at national convention may undermine PDP’s readiness for primary elections, candidate zoning negotiations, and broader coalition-building ahead of 2027.
What future holds
The Damagum–Anyanwu rift must be bridged. Which side commands INEC recognition, legal legitimacy, and internal support will determine whether the PDP can present a unified front.
Judicial arbitration as last resort
Internal party organs may give way to court judgments. As PDP actors litigate at state or national levels, the party risks ceding internal discipline to lawyers and judges.
INEC as power broker by default
If PDP fails to heal its internal contradictions, INEC’s posture—refusing or accepting letters based on procedure—may become a political lever in its own right.
Grassroots repercussions
State-level tensions could demoralize grassroots operatives, spark defections, or empower local power blocs inclined to break away or partner with rival parties.
Convention legitimacy
The recognition of delegates, state congress outcomes, and vice versa, rests on the credibility of the entire congress chain. If that falters, the 2025–26 PDP convention may be widely contested as invalid or factional.
The post PDP: How state congresses reopened old wounds appeared first on Vanguard News.
