Amadi Declares PDP Convention Legal, Faults INEC and Courts for Fueling Leadership Crisis

|By Adejumo Adekunle

Director of the Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, Dr. Sam Amadi, has affirmed that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) national convention remains valid and legally recognised, despite a string of conflicting court rulings that trailed preparations for the event.

Amadi, who spoke on Saturday during an interview on Arise News, said the latest court order issued before the convention cleared the party to proceed, effectively nullifying earlier contradictory injunctions. He insisted that the convention “has legalisation,” stressing that the most recent judicial directive, delivered on Friday, supported its conduct.

He blamed the controversy on what he described as the Independent National Electoral Commission’s failure to enforce its regulatory mandate, coupled with the courts’ habit of issuing “contradictory and unnecessary” ex parte orders. According to him, political actors now rush to secure favourable injunctions, instead of allowing party procedures and institutional mechanisms to run their course.

Amadi accused INEC of abandoning its quasi-judicial role, explaining that political parties are required to submit leadership documents to the Commission for verification before any judicial review becomes necessary. He argued that the Commission’s refusal to act decisively contributed to the confusion surrounding the party’s leadership structure.

He maintained that available facts affirm the legitimacy of the current Board of Trustees (BoT), which has been functional for more than three years and cannot be arbitrarily dissolved or replaced.

Clarifying debates over the Supreme Court’s position on party affairs, Amadi noted that the apex court only prohibits judges from selecting party leaders, not from reviewing whether parties comply with their internal rules.

Responding to recent expulsions of high-profile members, including Nyesom Wike and Ayodele Fayose, Amadi stressed the importance of due process but questioned the loyalty of party figures allegedly working with rival political interests.