 has intensified, following the){kind=link}
By Sani Gazas Chinade, Damaturu
The leadership crisis within the Yobe State chapter of the Inter-Party Advisory Council of Nigeria (IPAC) has intensified, following the rejection of a purported impeachment by the State Chairman, Umar Adamu Jajere, and Secretary-General, Mustapha Gado.
The two officials have dismissed the move by some members to remove them from office, describing the exercise as null and void over alleged violations of the council’s constitutional provisions and Code of Conduct.
In a joint statement, Jajere and Gado insisted that they remain the legitimate leadership of IPAC in Yobe State, warning against any attempt to recognise individuals claiming to have taken over their positions through what they termed an unlawful process.
The development has opened a fresh chapter in the internal political dispute within the umbrella body of registered political parties in the state, coming at a time when political activities are gradually gathering momentum ahead of the 2027 general elections.
In a Public Notice of Nullity and Disclaimer jointly signed by the chairman and secretary, the officials argued that the purported impeachment violated several provisions of the IPAC Code of Conduct 2019, making the exercise invalid and unacceptable.
They specifically questioned the legitimacy of the meeting where the decision was reportedly taken, alleging that it failed to satisfy the minimum attendance requirement of 50 per cent of the membership of either the State Executive Council or the State Assembly, as provided under Sections 8(ii) and 8(iv) of the Code.
The officials also alleged that some participants who took part in the meeting and voted on the impeachment were not duly nominated in writing by their respective political party state chairmen.
They said such participation violated Sections 4.2(a) and 15 of the council’s Code of Conduct, further questioning the credibility of the decision reached at the gathering.
Jajere and Gado also faulted the procedure adopted in convening the meeting, insisting that there was no written request signed by two-thirds of members and that the chairman was not served the mandatory seven-day notice required under Section 8(vii).
On the disciplinary aspect, the two leaders maintained that no formal complaint was lodged before the IPAC Disciplinary Committee or the Political Parties Alternative Dispute Resolution (PPADR) Committee.
They further claimed that no investigation was conducted and no established disciplinary procedure was followed before the purported decision to impeach them was announced.
According to the officials, these alleged procedural breaches were sufficient grounds to invalidate the entire exercise.
Consequently, they warned anyone parading himself as an IPAC official in Yobe State on the strength of the purported impeachment to desist, insisting that such claims lacked lawful authority.
The chairman and secretary also threatened disciplinary measures, including suspension, against members who participated in the exercise, accusing them of undermining the council’s established rules and regulations.
In a move to consolidate their position, the two officials called on the Yobe State Government, the Yobe State Independent Electoral Commission (YOSIEC), the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and other political stakeholders to recognise only Jajere and Gado as the legitimate leadership of the council in the state.
They disclosed that the National Secretariat of IPAC had also been notified of the development in accordance with Section 4.3 of the Code of Conduct.
The unfolding dispute raises fresh concerns about internal cohesion and the administration of IPAC in Yobe, particularly given the council’s responsibility for promoting dialogue, cooperation and political engagement among registered political parties.
With preparations and political alignments gradually building towards the 2027 general elections, the crisis could further test the ability of the council to maintain a united front and effectively discharge its responsibilities.
Meanwhile, the group that announced the purported impeachment had yet to respond to the allegations or offer its account of the circumstances surrounding the disputed exercise as of the time of filing this report.
About The Author
