By Segun Ayobolu
To its credit, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at least steered the affairs of the country for 16 years as the ruling party before it was dislodged from power in 2015 by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), which raised so much expectation by campaigning vigorously on the platform of change.
The APC was hurriedly cobbled together as a coalition to dislodge the sitting PDP federal government that, under President Goodluck Jonathan in particular, had become incredibly indulgent of corruption.
Having achieved that goal within an unbelievably short time frame, the diverse interests, fractions and factions within the APC have since turned on each other with ferocity.
There has been a desperate battle for the soul of the party with prominent party members seeking to seize control of its structures in the run up to 2023.
If the relatively narrow victory it secured over a still badly disorganized and disoriented PDP in the 2019 general elections is anything to go by, however, the APC, with the intensity of its internecine battles, will have gifted the opposition the presidency on a platter of gold long before the next polls.
This is probably why, as the party descended ever deeper daily into sheer anarchy with the confirmation by the Court of Appeal of the suspension of its National Chairman, comrade Adams Oshiomhole, President Muhammadu Buhari moved decisively on Thursday to return the APC to the path of sanity.
But should the President, the undisputed leader of the party, have acted through the instrumentality of a National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting convened by the self-proclaimed Acting National Chairman of the party, Chief Victor Giadom?
Matters were not helped by the phrasing of the press statement issued on the matter by the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Mallam Shehu Garba.
In his words: “The President has received very convincing advice on the position of the law as far as the situation in the party is concerned and has determined that the law is on the side of Victor Giadom as acting National Chairman.
Because he will always act in accordance with the law, the President will be attending the virtual meeting Giadom called for tomorrow afternoon”.
In reality, there appeared to be little or no legal nexus between Chief Giadom as Deputy National Secretary of the party and the national chairmanship.
There are higher officers in the party hierarchy such as the national deputy and vice chairmen, with constitutional authority to act in case of the incapacitation of the national chairman.
Furthermore, Giadom had not only been suspended by his ward and state chapters of the party in Rivers State, there was a subsisting injunction by the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, restraining him from participating in the activities of the party in any capacity pending the final determination of the case.
Again, the ex- parte order on which he laid claim to the position of Acting National Chairman had lapsed after 14 days since it was purportedly issued in March and had not been renewed.
Moreover, Giadom was a key party to the contrived factionalization of the National Working Committee (NWC) and his recognition by the President would deepen rather than resolve the party’s crisis.
However, Giadom and his faction of the party could not have been more grossly mistaken if they thought the NEC meeting he convened and which enjoyed presidential endorsement would canonize him as Acting National Chairman. President Buhari obviously had other ideas in mind.
At the end of the day, the President’s recommendations for moving the party forward took out all contending factions by dissolving the National Working Committee, constituting a Convention planning caretaker committee and directing all members with cases against the party in court to withdraw them or face disciplinary action.
There is thus the opportunity for the APC to go back to the drawing board, learn appropriate lessons from its misfortunes and misadventures and chart a new path forward.
True, this method of resolving the problem has its own drawback. Giadom had the support of not more than two other members of the NWC. The preponderant majority of other members supported the leadership of Chief Hilliard Eta, National Vice Chairman, South-South in the absence of Oshiomhole.
It could thus not rightly be claimed that the NWC was faction-ridden and thus rendered dysfunctional. Rather, a minority in the party with Giadom as its face, obviously disenchanted with Oshiomhole’s attempt to enforce party discipline and supremacy and also because of their ambitions for 2023, decided to deliberately foment crisis and make the party ungovernable for the leadership.
They sought to achieve their objective through access to the presidency but for President Buhari’s characteristic preference to play the statesman.
But then, disgruntled minorities can easily resort to these kinds of destabilizing antics in future and this is something that must be guarded against by not treating indiscipline and brazen flouting of the party constitution with kid gloves.
Of course, members of the dissolved NWC can justifiably raise questions as regards the constitutionality of the NEC action in this regard. But is it worth it? I don’t think so.
Oshiomhole took some courageous steps in trying to instill party discipline, empowering rank and file members to take ownership of the party and reducing the power and influence of overbearing caucuses.
Perhaps he could have adopted a less abrasive and confrontational style and treaded more gingerly on mine-ridden terrains especially when taking on entrenched power groups. His successes and failings offer useful lessons for the party’s future leadership.
One of the grievances against Oshiomhole is that under him the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party did not meet regularly to play its organizational roles as stipulated in the party constitution.
Consequently, party appointments and other disciplinary and procedural decisions that ought to have been made by the NEC were reportedly taken by NWC. This is a serious allegation. But the blame here does not belong to Oshiomhole alone.
If the National Chairman does not call for a meeting of NEC as he is required to do by the party constitution, at least two-thirds of the members of NEC are empowered to make a written demand for such NEC meeting to hold provided not less than 14 days notice is given.
Oshiomhole’s perceived petulance, stubbornness and rigidity are surely not the most critical challenge confronting the APC.
Rather, it is those members of the party in influential public positions who seek to utilize the tremendous resources of their offices to seize control of the party with a view to actualizing future political ambitions at higher levels.
But a political party in the true sense of the word is not a vehicle for the selfish pursuit of individual ambitions. It is a collective platform through which ideological like minds craft and promote the implementation of public policies for the common good.
The dissolution of the current NWC and the emergence of a new leadership at the next convention of the party do not mean that ambitious individuals who place their electoral ambitions in 2023 above the collective interest of the party will cease to exist.
Rather, they will continue to intensify their machinations towards capturing the party for their personal ambitions the nearer we get to 2023.
The only viable way forward for the party is to enforce strict adherence to its constitution at all levels as much as possible and subordinate every member no matter how highly placed to its supremacy.
It must also not cease to enhance popular control of the party by members through continuously deepening internal democracy while also reducing the influence and control of powerful caucuses who seek to subordinate collective purpose for personal agendas.
It is this kind of private capture that led the PDP to the electoral doom it experienced in 2015 and whether or not the APC will avoid such a fate is entirely in the hands of the party.
Leave a Reply