Why Atiku, Wike, and Others Are Not Facing PDP’s Disciplinary Committee
The National Disciplinary Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has clarified that its mandate is limited to addressing petitions formally brought before it, leaving many to question the party’s commitment to holding its high-profile members accountable for alleged anti-party activities.
Chairman of the Committee, Chief Tom Ikimi, made this known during a press briefing in Abuja on Wednesday, where he faced questions about the committee’s inaction against prominent party leaders such as former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, ex-Senate President Bukola Saraki, and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike. These figures have been repeatedly accused of undermining the party’s interests, contributing to the PDP’s electoral losses from 2015 to 2023.
Ikimi, flanked by ten committee members, including Chief Eyitayo Jegede, Hon. Patrick Ifo, and former governors Ibrahim Shekarau and Sam Egwu, emphasized that the committee’s jurisdiction is not restricted to the 2023 elections. However, he stressed that the panel can only act on formal petitions, not media reports or public allegations.
“Whether acts were committed against the party in 2015, 2019, 2020, or any other year, we can do nothing about them unless there are petitions sent to this committee. This committee does not write petitions; we only attend to petitions that are brought to us,” Ikimi stated.
This explanation raises questions about the PDP’s internal mechanisms for accountability. Critics argue that the party’s reluctance to proactively investigate high-profile members accused of anti-party activities undermines its credibility and reinforces perceptions of impunity within its ranks.
Ikimi also revealed that the committee had scheduled hearings for two cases: one involving the embattled National Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, and another against former Benue State Governor Samuel Ortom and ten others. However, both hearings were postponed due to last-minute excuses from the accused.
Anyanwu cited health challenges and provided a medical certificate to support his request for a postponement, while Ortom and his co-respondents claimed they had not received the petitions, despite evidence confirming delivery.
The committee, in a bid to ensure fairness, deferred the hearings to March 4, 2025. While this decision underscores the panel’s commitment to due process, it also highlights the delays and procedural bottlenecks that often characterize internal party disciplinary processes.
A Pattern of Avoidance?
The absence of Atiku, Wike, and Saraki from the committee’s radar has fueled speculation about selective justice within the PDP. These leaders, who have been at the center of allegations of anti-party activities, remain untouched, ostensibly because no formal petitions have been filed against them.
This raises a critical question: Is the PDP truly committed to sanitizing its ranks, or is it merely paying lip service to discipline while shielding its most influential members? The party’s inability to address these allegations head-on risks further eroding public trust and weakening its position as a viable opposition force
As the PDP’s disciplinary committee adjourns its sittings, the party faces mounting pressure to demonstrate its commitment to internal accountability. Without decisive action against those accused of undermining its electoral prospects, the PDP risks perpetuating a culture of impunity that could haunt it in future elections. The coming weeks will reveal whether the party is serious about reform or content to let its big names escape scrutiny.
For now, the question remains: Who will hold the PDP’s leaders accountable if not the PDP itself?
Reference
Why Atiku, Wike, and Others Are Not Facing PDP’s Disciplinary Committee