The Peoples Democratic Party’s planned national convention in Ibadan, scheduled for 15–16 November 2025, has been plunged into renewed turmoil. The party’s National Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, has formally accused party officials and unnamed INEC collaborators of forging his signature. He has petitioned the Department of State Services, the Inspector General of Police, and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The dramatic move adds a criminal allegation to a dispute already roiling the party. It raises acute legal and moral questions about the integrity of internal democracy.
Any serious observer must treat the claim as both a legal matter and a symptom of deeper institutional rot. According to documents made available to the press, Anyanwu says he never signed an August letter to INEC. The letter purported to be from him and bears a reference number PDP/DOM/GF.2/Vol.1M/25-140.
He asked security agencies to probe and, if necessary, prosecute those responsible for “forgery and cloning” of his signature. The petitions are dated 15 October and were submitted to INEC, DSS and the IGP on 16 October 2025.
This is not the first time the PDP has been mired in disputes over documents, signatures and internal procedures. The party has faced factional wars that erupted into competing claims of authority. These conflicts led to sporadic court fights and allegations of manipulated documents in earlier years.
The current dispute coincides with bitter disagreements over zoning. There are also conflicts about state-level control of party structures in the South South and other regions. Additionally, the micro-zoning formula for national offices is contentious. These quarrels have already produced litigation at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The court action cited as FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/25 was filed by PDP chairmen from Imo and Abia and the South-South Zonal Secretary. They accuse the Damagum-led National Working Committee of breaching the party constitution and internal election guidelines.
The judge at the interlocutory hearing needed proof of the authorised representative for the party in court. Two senior lawyers claimed to be the party’s counsel. Both are Senior Advocates of Nigeria.
The court fixed the substantive date. It ordered an exchange of processes. This action effectively created a legal freeze around any unilateral convention action.
Why does an alleged forged signature matter more than usual in 2025? First, party conventions are not private kabuki. INEC treats the notification and documentation from parties as part of the formal electoral ecosystem. A convention that flows from tainted authorisations risks infecting the organisational legitimacy of nominations and appointments that follow.
Second, forgery is a criminal offence. The allegation transforms an internal quarrel into a matter that implicates public institutions and the rule of law.
INEC’s role is administrative and regulatory, but it also relies on lawful party processes. The public has a clear interest in security agencies and the electoral umpire. They should verify the provenance of documents that seek to trigger legally consequential events.
The constitutional and philosophical stakes are higher still. From a republican perspective freedom depends on non-domination, not merely non-interference. Political parties are instruments of democratic self-government. If their internal procedures are captured, members become vulnerable to arbitrary power. Clandestine manipulation corrupts these procedures. It leaves the wider public exposed.
Neo-republican thinkers insist that institutions must guard against domination by ensuring transparent procedures, civic virtue and accountable mechanisms. In plain terms, if party rules or signatures can be forged to effect outcomes, hidden actors dominate members. The party ceases to be a vehicle for collective choice.
There are three immediate risks for the PDP. First, the judicial calendar will now decide whether the convention proceeds. Courts have already restrained party actions in recent weeks. An adverse interlocutory ruling will postpone the Ibadan meeting. It also legally nullify the meeting.
Second, the public narrative of incompetence and corruption will damage voter confidence. A party needs to show organised unity to compete in 2027.
Third, the allegation invites forensic scrutiny. Forensic document examination is specialised work. If conducted openly and professionally, it either exonerate or implicate actors. Either outcome will have profound consequences for internal legitimacy.
Political actors in the Wike camp are engaged in a strategic contest. Those aligned with the acting national chairman, Ambassador Umar Iliya Damagum, are also involved in this contest. They are competing over zonal control and the micro-zoning formula.
These are not mere administrative quibbles. Control of party structures in swing states like Cross River, Akwa Ibom and Plateau leads to patronage. It provides access to party machinery. It also influences delegate choice.
In short, control of convention mechanics determines who exercises real power inside the party. The stakes explain why disputes escalate quickly into both legal interventions and now criminal allegations.
What actions must the security agencies take? How should the party respond to keep any claim to democratic legitimacy?
First, the DSS and the police must handle the petition with procedural transparency and publish timelines for forensic verification.
Second, INEC should confirm publicly which documents it has in its possession. They should also state what documents it acted upon. Additionally, they need to confirm if any checks were conducted at the time.
Third, the PDP must impose an immediate moratorium on any convention-related action. This should remain in effect until the court process and any forensic inquiries conclude.
Anything less invites the label of opportunism and will hand political ammunition to opponents.
History offers caution. Nigeria’s post-1999 politics bear examples where forged documents and contested qualifications produced long term damage to institutions and careers.
The Salisu Buhari forgery scandal felled the Speaker in 1999. More recent high profile certificate and signature controversies have followed the same pattern. Public trust decays and institutional capacity for self-correction is tested. The PDP faces the same litmus test now.
The episode should trigger serious introspection for the party faithful. It should also do so for Nigerians watching a major opposition formation buckle under internal strain. Parties must be laboratories of democratic practice not laboratories of impunity.
If the allegations are false, swift and public exoneration is required. If they are true, criminal accountability must follow. The alternative is a slow bleed of legitimacy. This will ruin a convention. It will also harm the party’s capacity to offer a credible alternative to the ruling party in 2027.
This investigation will follow the court files. It will also track the forensic outcomes. Moreover, it will monitor any official responses from INEC, the DSS, and the IGP. For now the PDP faces a test that is legal, political and moral. How it answers will shape not just a convention timetable. It will also shape voters’ judgment of whether the party remains fit to govern.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
