Political tensions reached a boiling point at the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) national secretariat in Abuja as thugs disrupted the party’s 79th Board of Trustees meeting, prompting strong condemnation from party elder Chief Bode George. The incident, which saw former Youth Leader Sunday Ude-Okoye forcibly removed from the meeting, has sparked serious concerns about internal party discipline and stability.
Speaking at a press conference in Lagos’s Ikoyi district, George, a prominent PDP Board of Trustees member, characterized the attack as “despicable, inhuman, and wicked,” warning that such actions threaten the party’s democratic foundations. The disruption required intervention from multiple security agencies, including the Nigerian Police and Department of State Security Services, to restore order.
The veteran politician pointed to a disturbing trend of personal ambitions overshadowing the party’s collective interests, suggesting that certain party members had sponsored the attack to advance their political agenda. In a pointed criticism of those responsible, George emphasized that no member should consider themselves above the party’s disciplinary mechanisms, regardless of their perceived importance or influence.
The timing of this incident is particularly significant as it occurred during a crucial Board of Trustees meeting, raising questions about the party’s ability to maintain order during even more significant gatherings. George warned that failure to impose appropriate sanctions could embolden perpetrators to attempt similar disruptions at future party events.
The attack represents more than just a security breach; it symbolizes deeper divisions within Africa’s self-proclaimed largest political party. George’s characterization of the PDP secretariat as “sacred” underscores the symbolic importance of the violation, suggesting that the attack threatens not just physical security but the party’s institutional integrity.
Drawing a clear line between loyal party members and those he termed “disloyal individuals,” George called for immediate disciplinary action against those responsible for orchestrating the violence. His reference to preventing the PDP from becoming an “Agbero party” reflects concerns about maintaining the organization’s professional standards and political legitimacy.
The senior party leader proposed a two-pronged approach to addressing the crisis: immediate mediation between opposing factions and, if necessary, the removal of those unwilling to pursue peaceful resolution. This strategy acknowledges both the need for reconciliation and the possibility that some elements within the party may be beyond accommodation.
George’s analysis of the situation as “self-inflicted wounds” points to internal party dynamics rather than external pressures as the primary source of current tensions. His emphasis on the PDP’s unique position as “the only true national party” contrasts with his dismissal of the ruling All Progressives Congress as “a mere congregation of strange bedfellows,” highlighting the stakes involved in maintaining party unity.
The call for intervention from party elders suggests a recognition that traditional authority structures within the party may need to be activated to resolve the crisis. This appeal to established leadership hierarchies indicates both the seriousness of the situation and the potential pathways to resolution.
As the PDP grapples with these internal challenges, the incident raises broader questions about the state of Nigerian democracy and the ability of major political parties to manage internal dissent without resorting to violence. The resolution of this crisis could have significant implications not just for the PDP’s future but for the broader landscape of Nigerian politics.
