The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in the appeal filed by the embattled Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Samuel Anyanwu, challenging his sack from office.
The appellant is challenging the judgment of the Enugu division of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the Federal High Court judgment that removed him as the secretary of the party. Anyanwu has predicated his appeal on 10 grounds in urging the apex court to set aside the judgment of the lower courts.
In the appeal marked SC/CV/82/2025, filed by his counsel, Ken Njemanze, Anyanwu listed Aniagu Emmanuel, PDP, Ambassador Iliya Damagun (National Chairman) and High Chief Ali Odefa (National Vice Chairman, South East Zone, PDP) as first to fourth respondents, respectively.
He specifically challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, delivered on December 20, 2024, that affirmed the judgment of the High Court, which removed him from office as the PDP National Secretary and recognised Sunday Udey-Okoye.
Anyanwu argued that the appellate court erred in law when it upheld the trial court’s jurisdiction over a matter dealing with the internal affairs of the PDP. He contended that issues related to party leadership and membership are nonjusticiable and fall outside the jurisdiction of any court.
Additionally, the appellant criticised the lower court for failing to rule on whether the plaintiff had complied with the mandatory internal dispute resolution mechanisms stipulated in the PDP constitution before filing the suit.
Anyanwu also faulted the court’s decision for holding that the plaintiff had the locus standi to institute the case, asserting that such issues are fundamental to the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
The appellant further contended that the lower court erred in interpreting Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act 2022, arguing that he neither resigned nor was he removed from his position as National Secretary.
He emphasised that the PDP constitution outlines specific procedures for vacating executive offices, which include removal or resignation. He also argued that Article 47 of the PDP constitution provides for a four-year single term for party officers, and there was no basis for the concurrent findings of the lower courts that deemed him to have vacated his office.
At the resumed hearing of the appeal, all parties in the suit adopted their processes, except for PDP and Damagun, who did not file any processes. The respondents unanimously urged the court to dismiss the appellant’s appeal.
Specifically, citing Ali Modu Sheriff vs PDP, senior counsel Erokoro urged the apex court to depart from its earlier decision, which holds that political party issues are internal and no court has jurisdiction to entertain such matters. He further stated that Anyanwu resigned and the trial court already made a pronouncement on that.
“The lower court said he has resigned because the constitution says you must resign if you are going to conduct an election.”
The apex court, however, questioned: “does the court have the power to decide who should hold an office?”
On his part, Njemanze insisted that the lower courts did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as it is an issue that borders on the internal affairs of the party.
“My Lords, I have identified all the processes filed by the appellant. I adopt all these processes and, with the greatest respect, urge my Lords to allow this appeal. There are procedures for this sort of thing. My Lords, in all your judgments in the past year, you have consistently maintained that issues of leadership in political parties are not justiciable. The lower court and the trial court have no jurisdiction over the issue.”
Upon Njemanze’s submission, the five member panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Uwani Musa Abba-Aji, proceeded to reserve the case for judgment.
She said: “Judgment is reserved to a date that will be communicated to the parties.”
The apex court had earlier struck out Anyanwu’s motion for a stay of execution. Erokoro had called the attention of the court to the motion. At first, the apex court held that the motion for the stay of execution could not be taken.
Erokoro, however, explained that the stay of execution application was pending and should be withdrawn, so that it could be struck out. Upon his submission, Njemanze proceeded to apply for the motion to be withdrawn.
“I apply to withdraw the application for a stay of execution filed on the 5th day of February 2025.”
Erokoro and the other respondents did not object to the withdrawal. The apex court proceeded to strike it out.
“The application for a stay of execution filed on February 5 was withdrawn without any objection from either party,” Justice Abba-Aji said.
