08/05/2026
LEGAL POSITION ON THE STATUS OF SENATOR SAMUEL ANYANWU AND A.K. AJIBADE, SAN
A proper and dispassionate reading of the judgments reveals that the widespread public assertion that Senator Samuel Anyanwu and A.K. A.K. Ajibade were “sacked by the courts” is not supported by the actual tenor and substance of the decisions.
The judgments, when carefully examined, show that the courts did not make any direct or substantive order removing either Anyanwu or Ajibade from their respective offices within the PDP. Rather, the courts were principally concerned with procedural questions relating to the competence of appeals, authority to institute processes in the name of the party, and the legal consequences of alleged internal actions purportedly taken by certain organs of the PDP.
In Appeal No. CA/ABJ/1695/2025, the Court of Appeal merely considered whether an appeal filed by A.K. Ajibade, SAN could validly subsist in light of fresh evidence tendered alleging that he had been suspended or removed as National Legal Adviser of the PDP. The Court accepted that evidence solely for the limited purpose of determining whether he possessed authority at the material time to file processes on behalf of the party.
Importantly, the Court did not itself conduct any inquiry into the validity, constitutionality, or procedural propriety of the alleged suspension or removal. Neither did the Court make any substantive pronouncement declaring that Ajibade had lawfully ceased to hold office under the PDP Constitution. The Court merely proceeded on the basis of the materials placed before it for the purpose of resolving the procedural dispute regarding representation of the party in the appeal.
Accordingly, the judgment cannot reasonably be interpreted as a judicial removal of Ajibade from office. At best, it amounts to a provisional judicial recognition of an internal claim by one faction of the party for the limited procedural purpose before the Court.
The same reasoning substantially applies to Senator Samuel Anyanwu. There is no express order in the judgments declaring that Anyanwu was removed, sacked, or permanently divested of his office as National Secretary of the PDP. The courts did not undertake a substantive interpretation of the PDP Constitution regarding tenure, removal procedure, or the validity of any purported suspension.
Indeed, the consistent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in cases such as Onuoha v. Okafor, Dalhatu v. Turaki, and Lado v. CPC establishes that leadership disputes and internal administration of political parties are generally non-justiciable, except where there is clear violation of statute, constitutional provisions, or the party’s constitution.
Consequently, unless and until the alleged suspension or removal of Anyanwu and Ajibade is validly carried out in strict compliance with the PDP Constitution and affirmed through a substantive judicial determination, it cannot safely be asserted in law that they have ceased to hold office.
Furthermore, the judgments appear to recognize only the procedural consequences of competing claims to party authority, not a final determination of the substantive leadership structure of the PDP. The courts were concerned primarily with who could validly maintain processes before the court at the material time, not with conclusively determining the rightful holders of party offices.
It is therefore legally more accurate to state that the courts acknowledged certain internal claims within the PDP for limited procedural purposes, rather than that the courts directly removed or sacked Senator Anyanwu and A.K. Ajibade, SAN from office.
With respect to the purported attempt by the Turaki-led faction to constitute a caretaker committee and assume control of the PDP, such action would face substantial constitutional and legal obstacles unless it is expressly authorized by the competent organs recognized under the PDP Constitution, particularly the National Executive Committee or the National Convention.
A political faction cannot lawfully assume control of a political party merely by political strength or public declaration. Any attempt to dissolve existing structures or establish a caretaker arrangement outside the framework of the PDP Constitution may be challenged as unconstitutional, null, and void.
In view of the present legal uncertainty and absence of a definitive judicial pronouncement removing Senator Anyanwu and Ajibade from office, any unilateral attempt by a faction to take over the party structure may itself be vulnerable to legal challenge for violating the PDP Constitution and the settled principles governing internal party administration.
© M.A. Danlami, Esq
Taraba State Legal Adviser
People's Democratic Party (PDP)
