INEC's Rejection of PDP NEC Notice: Legal Objections or Selective Enforcement?

By Olu Ibekwe

In a move that has further stoked political tensions within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has, by a letter dated June 13, 2025, effectively rejected the notice for the 100th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the PDP scheduled for June 30. The notice, duly issued by the Acting National Chairman of the party, was dismissed on the grounds that it lacked the signatures of both the National Chairman and National Secretary — a decision many now see as both procedurally contentious and politically suspect.

INEC’s objection, citing Part II (12)(3) of its 2022 Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties, hinges on a technicality: that notices for party conventions or NEC meetings must be jointly signed by the National Chairman and National Secretary. However, in the PDP’s current circumstances, the position of National Secretary has been under internal review following the contentious status of Nnaemeka Anyanwu, whose removal was endorsed by the Southeast Zonal Executive, the National Working Committee (NWC), the Board of Trustees (BOT), and the PDP Governors Forum.

Following the May 2025 99th NEC meeting, which Federal Capital Territory Minister Nyesom Wike declared “illegal” due to Anyanwu's exclusion, the party has moved to stabilize its internal processes. In the interim, the Deputy National Secretary has stepped in as Acting National Secretary, a decision backed by the party’s hierarchy and reflective of ongoing political realignment.

Critically, legal analysts argue that INEC’s rejection of the notice — despite the party meeting the 21-day statutory requirement under Section 82(1) of the Electoral Act 2022 — could amount to selective enforcement of the law, especially as similar technical requirements have not been strictly enforced in the case of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). As one analyst put it, “This looks like a case of the witch crying at night and the baby dying in the morning.”

Can an Amended Notice Be Validly Signed Now?

Yes. According to legal interpretation of both the Electoral Act and INEC Guidelines, if the original NEC notice was submitted on time — as was the case here — the Acting National Secretary can validly sign an amended version of that notice without violating the 21-day requirement, provided the date of the meeting remains unchanged.

Section 82(1) of the Electoral Act requires a party to give at least 21 days’ notice for NEC meetings, but it does not demand that the same notice cannot be amended — especially if the changes are merely formal (e.g., signature correction) rather than substantive (e.g., new meeting date or agenda).

Notably, where one signatory office is vacant or under dispute, and the party’s governing bodies have duly recognized an acting official, such a signature satisfies the functional requirement of notification. In this case, the Deputy National Secretary — acting in good faith and under party mandate — is legally competent to sign the revised notice.

Furthermore, Nigerian courts have routinely upheld the legality of internal party decisions taken by acting officers where the substantive office holder is incapacitated, suspended, or removed — particularly where party organs have recognized the acting official. In this case, the Acting Secretary enjoys the backing of the NWC, BOT, and the party's regional structures.

Therefore, if the only amendment to the NEC notice is to reflect the signature of the Acting Secretary — without altering the date, venue, or agenda — then such an update does not breach either the PDP Constitution or the Electoral Act.

This clarification could open the door for the PDP to resubmit a corrected notice immediately, thereby preserving its June 30 NEC meeting date and avoiding a broader institutional crisis. The challenge now shifts from law to logistics — and perhaps, the deeper politics of intra-party power plays.

As the PDP continues to navigate its internal storms, the broader question remains: Is INEC acting as a neutral regulator or as an inadvertent player in partisan battles? The coming days will determine whether legality prevails or if precedent is allowed to drift in favour of selective enforcement.