A chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Emmanuel Deeyah, has criticised the decision of the National Working Committee, NWC, of the party to reinstate Sen. Samuel Anyanwu as the PDP’s national secretary, saying it came rather too late.

Deeyah, a strong ally of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, said this in a statement on Wednesday after the party reinstated Anyanwu as its National Secretary.

He said the reinstatement did not come early when the party had been deregistered, wondering why the party did not take the decision earlier, despite court judgements.

According to the former lawmaker, who represented the Khana/Gokana Federal Constituency at the House of Representatives, it was circumstances that made the NWC reinstate Anyawu, adding that it was not done willfully.

“They are waking up late. This is their morning. They have been doing what they wanted, and we were telling them that Anyanwu is the right person; they refused. It is unfortunate that we have leaders who cannot guarantee orderliness.

“It is not enough for someone to declare himself as something. There is a procedure. The moment that procedure is not followed, anyone who goes to court will get a judgment.

“Wike is a man of due process, and he follows due process, and that is why today, those people who did not see it and attacked him have seen the truth now, and they are turning around the bench to come back to agree with him. He told them this thing a long time ago.

“There is an agreement he had formerly with them that they should withdraw all cases and recognise Sam Anyanwu. They didn’t agree. Everybody read it where he said he would no longer agree with what they agreed on.

“This is what you experience when people who don’t know their right from their left make decisions. Even with a legal adviser, they were making unconstitutional decisions.

“This decision they have taken now is just because they have hit the brick wall, that is the reason they are recognizing and reinstating him, not because it was something they wanted to do.

“There is a difference when you do something as when it is necessary and when circumstances make you do what you never wanted to do.

“What they have done now is what circumstances forced them to do and not what they wanted to do. Whereas it is a decision and action that the party would have taken since.

“There is a direction provided by law; they would have followed that direction. Should we all get to this point when we have a judgment before we do the right thing,” he asked.