The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has commenced contempt proceedings against it’s embattled former National Secretary, Senator Samuel Anyanwu and the Chairman of the National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Amupitan over alleged disobedience and failure to comply with a subsisting judgment of court.

Justice Yusuf Halilu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), had in his judgment of January 12, 2026, struck out the suit filed by Anyanwu challenging his expulsion from the Party (PDP).

Although Anyanwu has now entered an appeal against the said judgment, the Ambassador Iliya Umar Damagun led National Committee (NEC) of the Party, the PDP and seven other judgment creditors, have initiated contempt proceedings against Anyanwu and INEC Chairman, Amupitan by filing Form 48, which is notice of consequences of disobedience of court orders.

The Form 48 which was filed by their lawyer, Johnathan Musa on April 20, 2026 reads:

“Unless you stop further disobedience and comply forthwith, obey the judgment/order of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, made on January 12, 2026, which dismissed the suit of Senator Samuel Anyanwu challenging his expulsion from the PDP, you will be guilty of contempt and you will be liable to be committed to prison.”

The Chief Ikimi seven-member Committee had on March 10, 2025 recommended the expulsion of Senator Anyanwu from the PDP for anti-party activities following findings arising from petitions by some party members. The NDC Report indicated that Anyanwu declined to appear before the committee.

However, challenging the recommendation of the National Disciplinary Committee, Anyanwu had dragged the NDC and the party’s then National Working Committee led by Amb Iliya Umar Damagum before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in suit No: CV/1050/2025 praying the Court to set aside the findings, decision and recommendation of the Committee on the ground that it lacked competence to determine allegations made against him.

Anyanwu also prayed the Court to invalidate the decision of the Committee claiming that it constituted a violation of his fundamental right to fair hearing under the constitution of the PDP.

However, delivering its judgment, the Court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction on the ground that Anyanwu’s claims are non-justiciable intra-party disputes while also affirming that they lacked merit.

Justice Yusuf Halilu had in dismissing the suit by Anyanwu, upheld the preliminary objections filed by the defendants by holding that “the plaintiff’s claims are non-justiciable intra-party disputes, the suit was commenced with mandatory internal dispute resolution procedures, and no reasonable cause of action is disclosed against the defendants.

“Accordingly, the preliminary objection filed by the 1st-9th defendants are hereby upheld. This honourable court declines jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff’s suit is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction and incompetence.”

Joined as defendants in the suit were Amb. Iliya Umar Damagun (for himself and National Executive Committee of the PDP); the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP); High Chief Tom Ikimi; Senator Abdullahi Idris Umar; Rt.Hon. Talford Ongolo; Hon. Emma Ibeshi; Hajiya Zainab Miana; Chief Chile Igbawua and Eyitayo Jegede.

Justice Halilu who proceeded to render judgment on the merit of the plaintiff’s claims equally reached his decision that his case was incompetent.

The Judge said: “Assuming without conceding and only in the unlikely event that this honourable court is wrong in its findings that it lacks jurisdiction (which it is not), this court has nevertheless considered the plaintiff’s claims on the merit.

“A careful examination of the Originating summons, the affidavit in support thereof and the documentary exhibits relied upon by the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff failed to establish any basis upon which this court can interfere with the disciplinary proceedings of the 2nd defendant (PDP).

“The evidence before this court disclosed that the plaintiff was duly invited to appear before the national disciplinary committee of the 2nd defendant but failed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded him.

It is settled law that a party who deliberately refuses or neglect to utilize an opportunity to be heard cannot subsequently complain of denial of fair hearing.

Furthermore, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the national disciplinary committee acted outside the powers conferred on it by the constitution of the 2nd defendant nor did he show that the procedure adopted was fundamentally defective or in breach of natural justice.Courts do not act as appellate bodies over the internal disciplinary mechanism of voluntary associations, once the procedure adopted substantially complies with the rules governing such bodies.

“The plaintiff, having alleged illegality, bias and unconstitutionally failed to place sufficient material before this court to justify the extraordinary intervention of the Court in the internal affairs of the 2nd defendant” the Court held. (The Sun)

Update news