In constitutional democracies, the integrity of political institutions is inseparable from the integrity of truth itself. When truth ceases to command respect in public discourse when it becomes an expendable resource traded for convenience institutions face pressures that threaten their constitutional stability. In such an environment, silence may become a principled stance: not an absence of ideas, but a refusal to participate in narratives that disregard legal norms and institutional order.
The current challenges within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) reflect this tension between constitutional principles and political expediency. As a registered political party, the PDP operates within a dual legal framework: its own Party Constitution and the broader constitutional order established under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). These frameworks coexist; internal autonomy is not a licence to disregard constitutional supremacy or judicial authority.
Yet, recent developments reveal efforts by certain individuals or factions to invoke “internal party democracy” while disregarding valid court orders and established procedures. From a constitutional standpoint, such conduct is incompatible with the rule of law. Internal party democracy exists within the constitutional structure; it is not exempt from judicial scrutiny nor immune from legal consequence.
It is within this context that the judicial pronouncements of Justice Omotosho and Justice Lifu acquire particular constitutional significance. The combined interpretation of the rulings delivered by Justice Omotosho and Justice Lifu makes it beyond irresponsible for anyone to assume that persons purporting to establish or announce a “new executive” within the PDP do so on any legal foundation. Their decisions clarify, in unambiguous terms, the status of party leadership and the binding effect of existing judicial orders. Any contrary assertion is inconsistent with the principles of judicial finality and constitutional interpretation.
The doctrine of judicial supremacy anchored in Section 6 of the Constitution establishes that the decisions of competent courts are binding on all persons and authorities, including political parties. No party official, faction, or internal mechanism may override or reinterpret a subsisting court order to suit political strategy. Thus, the suggestion that a Supreme Court judgment or any judicial directive may authorize institutional disorder stands contrary to constitutional logic. Courts do not dispense chaos; they define rights, obligations, and processes.
Therefore, the constitutionally recognized leadership of the PDP cannot be held liable for crises engineered by individuals acting in defiance of legal norms. To impose such responsibility would invert the constitutional hierarchy by penalizing compliance and rewarding defiance.
Likewise, any party executive mirroring obligations borne by public executives has a duty to implement lawful judicial directives. Hesitation or refusal, whether for political convenience or internal pressure, constitutes a departure from the doctrine of constitutional fidelity. The rule of law admits no selective application.
For the PDP to maintain institutional coherence and constitutional legitimacy, legal compliance must remain consistent and unambiguous. Selective obedience to judicial orders undermines the very foundation of party unity and democratic order. Unity secured through illegality is neither durable nor legitimate.
Silence may temporarily preserve decorum amid constitutional confusion, but it cannot replace principled adherence to law. Ultimately, it is the steady, disciplined observance of constitutional norms grounded in judicial authority, procedural propriety, and institutional responsibility that will secure the PDP’s legitimacy within the democratic framework and ensure its continued relevance in Nigeria’s constitutional order.
Otunba Segun Showunmi
The Alternative.
