There’s a certain weight to how political decisions land — like a heavy book slammed shut, or a door that you can hear from down the hall. The Social Democratic Party’s recent move to expel its national chairman, Shehu Gabam, along with two other members of the National Working Committee, felt like one of those doors. People breathed out — some sighs of relief, others of vindication — but not everything is neat. You can tell there are still loose threads, and not all of them will be tied up quickly.
Why people reacted the way they did
The accusations against Gabam and his colleagues were serious: financial misconduct, embezzlement, diversion of party funds and misappropriation. Those are not small charges. For ordinary members who want a party run with some measure of honesty, these are the kind of allegations that make you want a clear answer and swift action. That’s exactly what a chunk of the party’s leadership decided to provide.
Femi Olaniyi, who heads the State Chairmen Forum and also runs the Lagos chapter, put it plainly. In a statement on Friday he said the forum backed the expulsions and framed Gabam’s exit as a “victory for the righteous over evil.” It’s dramatic language, I’ll admit — but drama is part of politics. People choose words like that because they want to send a message: stop, this won’t be tolerated. Olaniyi also thanked the National Working Committee for following through. He said it felt like a relief to many in the party to see this detrimental influence removed.
Also read: Corey Lewandowski’s Next Move — Or Maybe Not: A Closer Look
Still, there’s more than one way to read the relief
Relief is real, yes. But relief doesn’t equal resolution. The decision came after months of investigation and disciplinary steps, and the final action was taken in an NWC meeting in Abuja. That suggests procedure — a process, hearings, evidence considered, the whole institutional machinery. But process can also hide politics. People I’ve talked to — not all of them inside the SDP, some just observers — point out that expulsions can sometimes be a way to settle internal scores. It happens. It’s messy.
So, while many rank-and-file members welcomed the move as a protection of the party from “reckless behaviour and mischief,” as Olaniyi put it, others are more cautious. They want to know what comes next: will there be transparency about the investigation’s findings? Will anyone be held legally accountable outside the party structure? Or does the story end with a press release and a pat on the back? I don’t have the documents, and neither do most of us. That uncertainty leaves space for doubt — and new rivalries.
What this means for the party now
Removing a controversial figure can be stabilizing; it can also open up competition. With Gabam gone, leadership dynamics shift. New ambitions will surface. State chairmen and other leaders will try to define what “cleaner” leadership looks like in practice. There’s a possibility for constructive change: tighter financial controls, clearer reporting, and better internal oversight. I hope so — these reforms would matter more than rhetoric.
But change isn’t automatic. The forum’s praise for the NWC’s action is encouraging. They called the move bold and necessary, thanking members across the country for support. Yet, those are the kind of statements that sound good in the moment. Lasting change will depend on follow-through. Will the party implement safeguards to prevent similar abuses? Will they be transparent about how funds are handled and who signs off on expenditures? I’m inclined to think there’s a real appetite for reform among many members, but appetite without action doesn’t feed anyone.
Small victories, larger questions
There’s truth in Olaniyi’s words that history won’t forget the years Gabam spent as national chairman. That may be accurate — both the positive and negative parts. He will be remembered for his tenure, and those memories will be debated. Yet, history also has a way of skipping the details we all want — the nitty-gritty of what actually happened with the party funds, the chain of approval, the checks that failed. Those are the things that should come into the light, if the SDP wants to be taken seriously.
And then there’s the human element. Party politics is also people — their reputations, careers, livelihoods. Expulsion is punitive and public. For many members, removing a problematic leader feels like moral housekeeping. For the expelled leaders and their supporters, it might feel like a betrayal, or at least a painful setback. Both points of view are real, and both matter for how the party will heal, or not.
A cautious hope
So I find myself cautiously optimistic. The expulsions could be a turning point if the party uses the moment to strengthen institutions and show consistent accountability. Or it could be a temporary patch, a symbolic gesture that papered over deeper problems. Either outcome is possible.
What’s clear is this: members wanted action and they got it. The State Chairmen Forum publicly supported the expulsions and framed them as a necessary step to protect the party. The NWC followed through after months of investigations and disciplinary processes. That’s the surface story. Underneath, though, the real work is just beginning — the work of reforming processes, restoring trust, and making sure that the next few months don’t just replay the same patterns.
Also reaD: From Kid in a Yearbook to the White House: JD Vance’s Surprising Face Change
If you care about the SDP — or about political parties being run properly — keep asking the hard questions. Demand details about the investigations, follow the reforms, and watch whether declarations of change turn into concrete rules and consistent, transparent practice. That will tell you more than any single statement ever could.
Leave a comment