PDP Struggles With Unresolved Conflict As Tensions Mount

Mue further stated: “The National Disciplinary Committee lacks the jurisdiction to entertain any disciplinary action against them, making the purported inquiry procedurally defective and unconstitutional.” Demanding a retraction, Mue added: “The premature publication of allegations against our client, without being duly informed, as provided by Section 57(4) of the Constitution of PDP 2017 (as amended), has led to public ridicule and reputational harm.” Ortom’s legal team insisted that the committee withdraw its press release, issue a written apology within 48 hours, and refrain from any public discussions about the case until proper notifications are made.

“The petitioners have also not accompanied the petition with the ‘pictorial, voice and video evidences’ (sic) which they intend to present at the hearing of the petition before the Disciplinary Committee.” Adaji demanded that petitioners provide proof of their PDP membership and include evidence—such as pictorial, voice, and video recordings—to substantiate their claims.

Addressing Ortom’s claim that he was not properly notified, Ikimi insisted that invitations were sent via courier and received, adding: “Last Wednesday, we went through the various petitions before us and two petitions were slated for hearing today (yesterday).

“’That the National Disciplinary Committee cease and desist from further public commentary on our clients’ matter until they have been formally notified of any allegations and given an opportunity to respond.

Ikimi explained: “Whether acts were committed against the party in 2015, 2019, 2020 or any other year, we can do nothing about them, except there are petitions sent to this committee.” He emphasized that the committee only acts on petitions and does not initiate cases independently.

“Failure to comply with these demands within 48 hours from receipt of this letter will leave our client with no choice but to seek redress in a court of law, including instituting a defamation lawsuit and petitioning law enforcement agencies for violations of the Cybercrimes Act 2015.” Senator Anyanwu, in his response to the disciplinary panel, declined the invitation due to a medical appointment.

He clarified: “NWC did not meet today; there was a WhatsApp discussion, but the Court of Appeal status quo ante bellum still stands.” Anyanwu also rejected Ologunagba’s position, insisting that the matter was still in court and no decision had been formally made by the NWC.

“This committee does not write petitions; we only attend to petitions that are sent to us.

“We were prepared to hear the petition today; the petitions were served on them directly and through courier and we have evidence that the petitions arrived at their destinations.

We believe that all will be well and the committee is going to be fair to everyone.” Despite the controversy, Ikimi announced that the hearing had been postponed to March 4, citing the need for fairness and consideration of Anyanwu’s medical condition.

“However, the committee has met and because we believe that we should give everyone a fair hearing and that we should not ignore issues like health challenges, we have decided to defer the hearing by another two to three weeks.

“’That a written apology be issued to our client within 48 hours of receiving this Notice.

“In light of the above, we hereby demand as follows: ‘That the National Disciplinary Committee immediately withdraw the Press Release issued on 5th February 2025..

0 0 Read Full Story