Politics

PDP Convention: Secondus Heads For Supreme Court, Vows To Stop Alleged Impunity

Published

4 years ago

October 30, 2021

The embattled National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, Prince Uche Secondus, has headed for the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division, which on Friday gave a nod for the party’s National Convention to hold in Abuja on Saturday (today).

He said impunity, which he alleged had driven the party to the precipice and threatened its internal democracy and unity, must be resisted at all costs.

In an interview with one of The PUNCH correspondent, Secondus said he had instructed his lawyers to appeal the ruling at the apex court in the interest of justice.

He said if those who orchestrated and foisted what he described as an avoidable crisis on the party had listened to “wise counsel of party leaders and elders who advised the withdrawal of cases, this situation would have been avoidable. I wish the party well as always.”

The Appeal Court sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State had on Friday dismissed the appeal filed by Secondus seeking an interim injunction to restrain the PDP from conducting its National Convention scheduled for October 30 and 31, 2021 in Abuja.

The three-man appeal panel ruled that Secondus lacked the power to stop the party’s scheduled convention, pointing out that the national leadership of the party was not an exclusive preserve of the appellant (Secondus).

The court also said Secondus failed to challenge his suspension as a member of the party from his Ward 5 in Ikuru town, Andoni Local Government Area of Rivers State, a decision it said was affirmed by the State High Court in August 2021.

The court stated that he failed to join the party’s acting National Chairman, Yemi Akinwonmi, in the suit challenging his (Akinwonmi) nomination by the party, insisting that the right which he claimed to be protecting had been withdrawn and given to Akinwonmi by the same party.

Justice Gabriel Kolawale, who read the ruling of the three-man panel headed by Justice Haruna Tsammani, also noted that Secondus did not indicate interest in his application to continue as the national chairman of the PDP after being suspended nor indicated any interest to re-contest for the position upon the expiration of his tenure on December 9, 2021, hence the application was a distraction to the planned national convention of the PDP.

Justice Kolawole refused to award costs against the appellant as sought by the respondents, adding that the application was not an abuse of court processes.

“The appellant motion on notice filed on October 27, 2021, fails and is hereby dismissed. By the power of this decision, the 6th respondent is empowered on the authority of this court’s decision to hold its national convention without any hindrance,” Justice Kolawale declared.

Speaking to journalists outside the courtroom, counsel for Secondus, Mr Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), said the dismissal of his client’s application was not the end of it as the instructions of the appeal were still alive.

He said, “The court has directed that the PDP can continue with the national convention. However, the instruction is that the appeal continues and depending on the outcome of the appeal, if it succeeds then it has an impact on whatever decision is taken on the national convention.

“So, it’s still not over. We still have an appeal pending before this court (Court of Appeal) waiting to be taken. That is when the court said they would give us a date to come and argue. It is the outcome of that that would determine the validity or otherwise (of our case).”

On his part, Henry Bello, counsel for the 1st to 5th respondents (Rivers local government council chair who took Secondus to the state High Court), who spoke on behalf of the respondents said the ruling was a ticket to a hitch-free national convention as scheduled.

Bello stated, “The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt has delivered a considered ruling, where the court has dismissed the application of the appellant/applicant, Uche Secondus, to stop the national convention of the PDP.

“Rather, the court has ordered the PDP to go ahead with its national convention unhindered.”

On August 23, 2021, some PDP members instituted a suit at the Rivers State High Court with Secondus and the PDP as defendants.

On September 10, the court delivered its judgement and restrained Secondus from performing the duties of the party’s national chairman.

Secondus subsequently filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal on October 14, seeking an order of injunction restraining the PDP from holding or conducting the national convention, pending the hearing and final determination of the appeal.

Impunity must be resisted, I’ll go on appeal – Secondus

Reacting to the ruling, Secondus said he disagreed with it, but still respected it.

Secondus in a statement released by his Media Adviser, Ike Abonyi, said the ongoing case was not about him but the need to protect the sanctity of the party’s constitution.

The statement said, “I have just been briefed on the ruling of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt dismissing my motion to halt the National Convention of the party. I respect the position of the court even though I disagree totally with it.

“Even as the substantive case is still pending at the Court of Appeal, I have instructed my lawyers to study the ruling with a view to appealing it immediately as no abuse of the constitution of our dear party should be allowed to stand.

“The issue is not about Prince Uche Secondus but about the sanctity of our party constitution and core democratic principles of justice and rule of law not only in PDP but in our democracy. No impunity must be condoned.

“I will therefore wish to emphasise the fact that I did not take the party to court and would not have done that. As a foundation member of this party who has served at various levels as state chairman, chairman of state chairmen, National Organising Secretary, Deputy National Chairman, Acting National Chairman and now National Chairman, I am very much abreast with the workings of the party. I have been a witness to how much harm litigations have done to our party in the past and as a result, I have been a strong advocate against settling issues in courts.”

He said he resisted pressures mounted on him to go to court to stop those planning against him because of his love for the party, adding that he did not want to be seen as someone who took the party to court.

He added, “This was why I resisted and rejected entreaties of those who wanted me to go to court to halt these forces when it was obvious that they were determined to disrupt my leadership and truncate my tenure in office with the sole objective of hijacking the party for their selfish, ulterior motives.

“To allow this travesty to stand is to reduce our beloved party to a level where anybody can wake up overnight and remove officers against the proscribed constitutional process and the National Chairman for that matter, purporting to use the judiciary through an ex parte order to legitimise same.

“As a major practitioner in our democracy, I am duty-bound to protect and defend the sanctity of the provisions of our constitution of which I am the custodian.

“I wish to at this juncture thank and appreciate leaders and other stakeholders of our party who have called to express their concerns on this matter and appeal for the understanding of all.”

He noted that if those who orchestrated and foisted the avoidable crisis on the party had listened to the wise counsel of party leaders and elders who advised the withdrawal of cases, the current situation would have been avoidable. I wish the party well as always.”

No individual can derail PDP’s mission, says Wike

Meanwhile, the Governor of Rivers State, Nyesom Wike, has said no individual, including Secondus, can derail the party’s mission to rescue Nigeria.

Wike alleged that Secondus’ attempt to scuttle the PDP National Convention had made him an enemy of the party that resolved to end the poor leadership of the All Progressives Congress-led Federal Government.

The governor spoke in Port Harcourt on Friday while reacting to the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of Secondus’ application that sought to stop the PDP convention and his reinstatement as the national chairman of the party.

Wike, in a statement by his media aide, Kelvin Ebiri, stated that PDP’s mission to rescue Nigeria was a commitment that would not be compromised because of the mess the APC had made of Nigeria.

The statement read, “What Secondus is doing is to sabotage the efforts of Nigerians, the efforts of the PDP to rescue this country from the party that has failed the country and it is not fair.

“This is a party that has given you everything and there is nothing wrong in making sacrifices. Even if, assuming though not conceding, anything was wrong, we expected that having achieved the much you have from this party, there is nothing wrong in making sacrifices.

“If you make sacrifices for the party, you’re making sacrifices for Nigerians. If PDP is not there, which other party is ready to rescue Nigeria?”

Wike clarified that the Court of Appeal did not only dismiss Secondus’ application but also ordered that the PDP National convention be conducted unrestrained.

He added, “Our constitution provides that if a national chairman is removed, the deputy national chairman from that zone will immediately be the chairman or acting chairman as the case may be.

“So, when Secondus was removed, he handed over to the acting national chairman now. So, the act has already been done, completed. What will the court say when someone is already acting and supervising that office.”

The governor said the party, particularly the PDP governors “are more united because they have realised that Nigeria is in a problem and only a united PDP can wrest power from the APC.”

He added, “Nigeria is in a problem and we cannot do it alone. We require everybody to work with us collectively and see how this country can be rescued. Nigerians are not happy with the ruling party and as it is today, PDP is the only platform that will rescue Nigeria.”

He noted that the Chairman of the PDP Governors Forum, Governor Aminu Tambuwal of Sokoto State, had recently led a team of his colleagues to Ondo State to woo the former Governor of Ondo State, Olusegun Mimiko, into the PDP.

“Anybody who crosses our path to stop this rescue of Nigeria, the person is an enemy of this country,” the statement added.

Victory was for democracy – Caucus

The leader of the party’s caucus in the House of Representatives, Mr Kingsley Chinda, has described the dismissal of the appeal filed by Secondus against the party as victory for democracy.

Chinda, in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria said neither Secondus nor the PDP won the case, noting that the victory was for all Nigerians.

He promised that regardless of the outcome of the judgment, Secondus would work closely with the party to enthrone good leaders in future elections.

He said, “It is a welcome development and it strengthens our democracy, which restates that power belongs to the people. However, regardless of the judgment, neither the PDP nor Secondus won. The victory was for the people of Nigeria and indeed democracy.”

(PUNCH)

Related Topics:PDP Convention Prince Uche Secondus

Up Next

Anambra Guber: Father Mbaka Speaks

Don't Miss

[JUST IN] 2023: Buhari Rules Out Tenure Extension, Warns Supporters

Comments

Politics

Edo Govt, PDP Bicker Over Okpebolo’s Absence ,₦4.2bn SUV Budget

Published

5 hours ago

September 4, 2025

Editor

The Edo State Government and the state chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) on Thursday traded words over an alleged absence of Governor Monday Okpebolo and his deputy , Hon Dennis Idahosa in the state.

In a statement signed by
Chris Nehihkare, Publicity Secretary,
State Caretaker Committee of the PDP, the party also accused the Edo State Government of budgeting a whooping #4.2bn for Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV) and overbloating the State Executive Council with 28 Commissioner nominees.

Nehihkare, who said “absence of both leaders, who are currently on foreign trips, is an unprecedented abdication of duty,” alleged that their absence has left Edo in a “dangerous leadership vacuum.”

“The reckless dereliction of responsibility has plunged Edo into a dangerous leadership vacuum at a time when citizens are groaning under economic hardship, worsening insecurity, and stalled public services—direct consequences of the ineptitude of the APC-led administration at both the federal and state levels,” the statement reads.

The opposition party raised the alarm over what it called a “disturbing level of wasteful spending by the Okpebholo administration.”

According to the PDP, “the government plans to spend ₦4.2 billion on luxury SUVs for these commissioners, with each vehicle priced at an estimated ₦150 million.

“This reckless expansion of government comes on top of a growing army of Special Advisers, board chairmen, members, and heads of parastatals—appointments that have driven the cost of governance in Edo to an all-time high,” the statement added.

The party accused the administration of prioritizing luxury and patronage over the welfare of Edo citizens.

It criticized the government’s failure to follow the lead of other states that are using increased federal allocations to improve worker welfare and raise the minimum wage.

“While other states are prioritizing workers’ welfare by raising the minimum wage in line with increased allocations from the Federation Account, the Okpebholo/Idahosa administration is fixated on buying SUVs, ‘sharing the money,’ and settling political IOUs,” the party noted.

The statement added: “Are Okpebholo and Idahosa unaware that farmers in Uhunmwonde and Ovia North-East have abandoned their farmlands due to attacks by armed gangs?” the statement questioned. “Do they not know that kidnappers continue to terrorize highways and communities across Edo, while markets in Benin and other cities are no longer safe, with traders forced to close early out of fear?”

The PDP, therefore, called on the governor and his deputy to return from their foreign trips and confront the “urgent task of governance,” which it said includes restoring security, paying workers, rehabilitating infrastructure, and improving public services.

However, in a shift reaction, Chief Press Secretary to the governor, Fred Itua, said the Edo State deputy governor, Hon Dennis Idahosa had since returned to the country and is discharging his duty diligently .

He urged the public to disregard the “falsehoods peddled by the PDP.

“Edo State is not rudderless. It is firmly on course under the purposeful leadership of Governor Monday Okpebholo and his deputy, Rt. Hon. Dennis Idahosa,” he added.

Politics

Court Ruling Clears Jonathan For 2027 Presidential Bid Amid Pressure From Parties

Published

2 days ago

September 2, 2025

Editor

As the possibility of former President Goodluck Jonathan contesting the 2027 presidential election continues to heat up political discussions, a previously unpublished judgment delivered by a Federal High Court in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, affirmed that Jonathan was well qualified to contest presidential election.

Two members of the APC in Bayelsa had gone to court in 2022 to determine Jonathan’s position, given the high stakes northern lobby to mobilise Jonathan to replace late President Muhammadu Buhari before the now President Tinubu eventually clinched the APC ticket.

Aides to the former President said he is still consulting on whether to throw his hat in the ring for 2027.

Sources close to the former President told THISDAY last night, that he has been approached by three political parties each wanting him to contest the presidency on their platforms. The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, the New Nigeria Peoples Party, NNPP and the recently formed coalition, the African Democratic Congress, ADC all jostling for the former President who many see as one of the most viable candidates that can give the incumbent President Bola Ahmed Tinubu a good run for his money.

This calculation is based on the fact that Jonathan can only legally seek one more term and could assuage the feelings of northern voters who accuse President Tinubu of marginalisation.

A claim that the presidency has vigorously denied.

The judgment delivered by Justice Isah Dashem of the Federal High Court, Yenagoa, on May 27, 2022 but obtained by THISDAY on Monday, put to rest the contentious constitutional amendment of Section 137(1)(b) and 3, as it affects Jonathan.

Various analysts led by the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development and Learned Silk, Festus Keyamo, had claimed that the PDP may put its presidential chances in 2027 at “risk” should they field Jonathan going by the provisions of the above section from the amended Constitution in 2018. However, Keyamo did not disclose or was unaware of the judgement of Justice Dashem.

The judgment, which has not been appealed or set aside remains subsisting. And it is now out of time for any appeal after 3 years since it was delivered In the 2022 suit with number: FHC/YNG/CS/86/2022, the two APC members sued Jonathan, APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), over rumour that the APC had planned to field the former president as its presidential candidate in the 2023 general elections.

Their grouse was that Jonathan’s participation would ruin the chances of the APC having taking oath of office twice as president.

The sole issue raised for determination was “Whether, in view of the provisions of | Section 137(1)(b) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as altered) and the fact that Jonathan had earlier been sworn-in as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 2010 and 2011 respectively, whether he is qualified to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections to be organized by the 3rd Defendant.”

The plaintiffs, Andy Solomon and Idibiye Abraham, through their lawyer, Seigha Egbuwabe, further urged that if the answer to (1) above was in the negative, then the court should determine “Whether the no 2” Defendant was entitled to field the 1st Defendant as its Presidential Candidate in the 2023 General Elections.”

The court was also to determine, “Whether the 3rd Defendant is entitled to disqualify the 1st Defendant from contesting and/or from being presented as the 2nd Defendant Presidential Candidate in the 2023 General Elections.”

Dashem, after taking arguments from plaintiffs’ lawyer and Jonathan, who was represented by Eric Omare, held that Jonathan was eminently qualified to contest in 2023.

Before arriving at the conclusion, Dashem observed that Jonathan was elected first as president in 2011.

“The office into which the ‘election’ stated in Section 137(1)(b) of the Constitution applies to the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and not into the Office of the Vice President. I have perused the entirety of the Plaintiffs supporting affidavit and Written Address and I am unable to find where the Plaintiffs referred this Court contested apart from the elections conducted in year 2011.

“I, therefore, find the Plaintiffs’ contention that the 1st Defendant has been elected to the Office of President on Two (2) previous occasions spurious, baseless and unsubstantiated.

“And I so hold.”

He clarified that although elections into the offices of President and Vice President were conducted simultaneously and upon a joint ticket submitted by a political party, such as the 2nd Defendant, to the 3rd Defendant, the positions of President and Vice President were two different offices.

According to the judge, election of a person, such as the 1st Defendant, into the Office of the Vice President is not the same as his election into the Office of the President and vice-versa.

The judge stated, “A person who is elected into the Office of Vice President cannot by virtue of such election simpliciter, occupy the position of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I so hold.

“As I have noted above, the Plaintiff did not file a Reply Affidavit to dispute the facts contained in paragraphs 4(i) — (y) of the 1st Defendant’s Counter Affidavit. The legal implication of this failure is that the contentions of the 1st Defendant are deemed to be true.

“In the final analysis, I find that, the evidence before this Court points to the conclusion that the 1st Defendant has only been elected into the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on one (1) previous occasion, which said occasion was in the General Elections conducted in year 2011. And I so hold.”

On the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution, Dashem stated that Jonathan was sworn in as president in 2010, to complete the tenure of late President Umaru Yar’Adua and again in 2011, after he won the 2011 presidential election.

He agreed with Jonathan’s submissions that the said provisions, which sought to bar persons who completed another’s tenure from contesting twice, did not apply to him because the law was passed in 2018, when he already had the right to contest and contested in the 2015, general elections.

Dashem said, “As I have held above, the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution was not part of our Constitution prior to June 7, 2018, when same took effect. It, therefore, follows that the provisions of sub-section (3) was not the position of our law at all material times before June 7, 2018. It also follows that, prior to June 7, 2018, no restriction was placed on the number of times a person who was sworn-in to complete the term of office of a President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can be re-elected into that Office.

“The 1st Defendant has argued that, since he acquired his right to contest and, if successful, be sworn-in as President after he lost his re-election bid, in 2025, to the current President – President Muhammadu Buhari it would be unethical to the spirit and intendment of the legislature to take away the right he acquired in year 2015 on the basis of a law that came into effect in 2018.

“Now, the position of the law on retroactive or retrospective application of laws is quite settled. Retroactive laws are which relate or cover matters or acts which occurred before its commencement date.”

The judge added, “Despite my best efforts, I fail to see where the legislature expressed their intention, by express and unequivocal words, that the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution should be accorded retrospective application.

“In the absence of such express words, I am constrained to hold that the provisions of Section 137(3) do not enjoy retrospective application. The application and enforceability of the said subsection can only be construed to apply with effect from June 7, 2018. And I so hold.

“In my opinion, the position being propounded by the 1st Defendant is not only tenable but accords with the position of the law. It is the duty of the Plaintiffs to point or direct this Court to where the legislature stated that the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution apply to events and/or rights which have been acquired and/or have been vested in parties prior to June 7, 2018.

“The law is that, he who asserts must prove. See, Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. It therefore, behoved the Plaintiffs to provide this Court with facts to support their case. In the absence of such proof, I find that the Plaintiffs have not discharged the burden of proof placed on them by law.

“I, therefore, find merit in the argument of the 1st Defendant that the introduction of sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution does not affect his right to contest for the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections and be sworn-in as such, should he be victorious at the polls.

“As I have noted above, before, in year 2015 when the 1st Defendant lost his re-election bid into the Office of the President, the restriction imposed by subsection (3) to Section 137 was not in existence. This is why the 1st Defendant despite having been sworn-in as President on May 6, 2010 and May 29, 2011, was able to contest for the Office of the President in the 2015 General Elections.

“Had the 1st Defendant been victorious at the 2015 polls, he would have been sworn-in for a third time without any legal impediment. Therefore, the 1st Defendant acquired his right to contest for the Office of the President immediately his term as President ended on May 29, 2015. Clearly, it is incontrovertible that the Ist Defendant’s right to contest and be sworn-in as President accrued to and was vested in him on May 29, 2015. And I so hold.

“In the final analysis, I answer Question 1 formulated by the Plaintiffs in their Originating Summons in the affirmative.

“I declare that, the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution acquired the force of law with effect from June 7, 2018 and same does not have retrospective application.

“I also declare that, the 1st Defendant is not disqualified by the provisions of Section 137(1)(b) and (3) of the Constitution from contesting for election into the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections.

“Having answered Question 1 in the affirmative, the necessity to answer Questions 2 and 3 have been obviated. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I answer Question 2 in the affirmative also whilst I answer Question 3 in the negative.

“In the final analysis, I answer questions 1 and 2 posed in the Originating Summons in favour of the 1st Defendant and question 3 in the negative and therefore against the 3rd Defendant.

“Consequently, I enter Judgement for the I Defendant and all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs in their Originating Summons dated May 16, 2022 (but filed on May 17, 2022) fail and are all hereby dismissed.”
Source: Arise News

Politics

El-Rufai Hits Back At ONSA, Kaduna, Insists Agencies Paying Bandits

Published

3 days ago

September 1, 2025

Editor

Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, on Monday rebutted the statements from the Office of the National Security Adviser and Kaduna State Government that accused him of politicising national security.

He maintained his previous accusation that the agencies turn security into a political tool and are complicit in payments to bandits.

In a lengthy response posted on his social media accounts, El-Rufai said the ONSA and Kaduna government were deflecting from the “core issues” he raised in a Channels Television interview.

He levelled fresh allegations that state actors have been involved in “greasing the palms” of non-state armed groups in Kaduna and neighbouring states.

The statement read, “As usual, the combined voices of the Government of Kaduna State (KDSG) and ONSA, instead of responding to the core issues I raised, seek to deflect responsibility by alleging that exposing them amounts to politicising security.

“As a person whose three siblings served in the Nigerian Army and the Air Force, with one of them rising to the rank of general, I will also continue to appreciate the immense work that continues to be done by gallant officers of the military and security agencies.

“It is a well-known fact to discerning Nigerians that the face of the politicisation of national security for politically intended purposes resides, for the first time in our recent history, in the ONSA under its present leadership.

“If the ONSA thinks Nigerians are not following its unclear and incompetent management of terrorism and banditry in Northern Nigeria and beyond, in collaboration with a certain senator, also from the North, then it is high time it carried out an in-depth evaluation and review of its actions.”

El-Rufai asked a string of pointed questions, urging authorities to explain what he described as the mechanics of alleged payments to bandits: who delivers the money, how much is handed over, and whether middlemen skim funds before delivery.

He also challenged officials to account for recent purchases of prime real estate in Abuja, which he suggested could be linked to illicit flows.

“This charade by ONSA is being done gleefully at a steep cost to the finances of the country and the ethical fabric of our society.

“The constitutional, legal and patriotic duty the government owes to security is to better support our military and security agencies with more resources like personnel, equipment and technology, rather than further endangering the country by mollycoddling bandits.

“What exactly constitutes ‘negotiations with bandits’? Why is non-kinetic approach to addressing banditry and criminality equal to withdrawals of huge amounts of money from state treasuries and handing them over to bandits and terrorists?

“Which officials and their intermediaries deliver this money, and how much personal withholding tax do they apply before delivery of the funds? Who are the most prolific purchasers of prime real estate in Abuja in the last two years, and what is the source of their newfound wealth?

“These are questions many discerning citizens are demanding answers to, while officials of ONSA and KDSG are focusing on protocol, propaganda and international junkets!”

El-Rufai further questioned the effectiveness of recent negotiations with bandits, saying attacks resumed after talks.

“After the much-publicised negotiations with bandits in Birnin Gwari… did the bandits not kill five citizens in the same Birnin Gwari LGA last month?” he asked, also listing other local government areas where kidnappings and killings allegedly continued.

He criticised what he described as ONSA’s public displays, including the parade of “rescued victims” and the attendance of senior security officers at political events in Kaduna, as examples of politicised security messaging.

The former governor, who led Kaduna for eight years, reiterated his respect for the military and security agencies and recalled working with numerous service chiefs during his tenure.

“Our appreciation for the sacrifices made by our military and security officers is deep. That is why we speak out about those saddled with immense responsibility two years ago who seem to view security management as a persistent exercise in propaganda,” he continued.

El-Rufai also accused the Kaduna State Government of sponsoring or enabling violence against political opponents, pointing to last weekend’s disruption of an African Democratic Congress meeting in Kaduna as evidence.

He concluded by urging ONSA and Kaduna authorities to focus on solving insecurity rather than “muzzling” dissent.