IT’S A CHARADE: AGGRIEVED NDC MEMBERS REJECT UTOMI, GALADIMA

“There can be no meaningful reconciliation where the facts remain contested, and the disputed outcomes are treated as untouchable. True peace cannot take root in the poisoned soil of unpunished injustice.”
A committee cannot legitimize a flawed process

“The appointment of respected personalities to the committee does not, by itself, confer legitimacy on the process that produced the disputes.

“Prof. Pat Utomi, Engr. Buba Galadima and the other members may bring credibility and experience to the assignment, but even the most respected individuals cannot transform an unjust process into a just one simply by sitting on a reconciliation panel.

“The real test is whether the committee has the independence and authority to question the party leadership, examine the primary-election records, hear all sides, overturn illegitimate decisions where necessary, and recommend the restoration of mandates where wrongdoing is established.”

The statement warned that anything less would amount to political theatre and emphasized that the aggrieved are not the problem.

“The NDC should stop treating those who are challenging disputed outcomes as obstacles to party unity. The real threat to party unity is not the member demanding justice.

“The real threat is a system that tells a legitimately aggrieved member: ‘Accept what happened or be accused of destroying the party.’ That is an unacceptable distortion of democratic principles.

“Members have every right to demand transparency. They have every right to question primary-election outcomes. They have every right to insist that their votes and mandates not be casually substituted by political calculations.

“And they should not be expected to surrender those rights merely because the 2027 elections are approaching.”

Reconciliation must begin with truth

“If the NDC genuinely wants reconciliation, then the committee should begin with the facts. Let the disputed primaries be examined. Let the competing claims be heard. Let the evidence be reviewed. Let the rules of the party be applied equally.

“Let anyone who benefited from an illegitimate process be prepared to have that outcome reviewed. And, most importantly, let the committee be free to make recommendations that may be uncomfortable for the party leadership. That is what genuine reconciliation looks like.

Anything short of that is merely an exercise in public relations.”

The aggrieved members said the NDC cannot campaign for democracy while practising the opposite.

“The NDC cannot credibly present itself to Nigerians as a democratic alternative while failing to resolve allegations of internal democratic violations within its own ranks.

“A party that seeks the mandate of Nigerians in 2027 must first demonstrate that it respects the mandates of its own members.

“You cannot preach democracy to the electorate while asking your own members to accept disputed outcomes without a credible remedy.

“You cannot demand public trust while refusing to confront internal mistrust. And you cannot build a credible national alternative on unresolved internal contradictions.”

They said that the talked-about unity would be achieved if the stolen mandates are returned.

According to the statement: “The message to the NDC leadership should therefore be unequivocal: Do not use reconciliation as a mechanism for legitimizing disputed outcomes.

“If the party truly believes in fairness, let it have the courage to dismantle illegitimate outcomes, restore mandates where the evidence demands it, and subject contested matters to genuinely independent arbitration.

“Until that happens, this reconciliation committee risks becoming nothing more than a hollow charade — a desperate attempt to cover a festering wound without treating its cause.”

The statement added that the NDC does not need forced peace.

“It needs justice before reconciliation, truth before unity, and democracy before electoral expediency. Anything else is merely an insult to the very democratic values the party claims to uphold.

“A stolen mandate cannot be reconciled away. A disputed election cannot be wished away. And injustice cannot become legitimate simply because a committee has been established to manage the anger it created.”

The aggrieved members said they view the committee as intended to endorse or validate injustice rather than correct it.

They said the reconciliation effort is seen as legitimizing manipulated mandates and as an attempt to persuade aggrieved members to accept an unfair outcome.

“Let it be on record that this is completely unacceptable. It is a blatant affront to fairness, justice, and due process, and it must not be tolerated,” they added.