There is a certain weight to how political decisions land – like a big book that closes or a door that can be heard down the hall. The Social Democratic Party’s recent decision to expel its national chairman, Shehu Gabam, along with two other members of the National Working Committee, looks like one such door. People have sighed – some sighs of relief, others of vindication – but not everything is perfect. You can see that there are still some loose threads left, and they won’t all be tied up quickly.
Why people reacted the way they did
The accusations against Gabam and his colleagues were serious: financial misconduct, embezzlement, embezzlement of party funds, and embezzlement. These are not small fees. For ordinary MPs who want a party to be run with some honesty, these are the kind of allegations that make you want a clear answer and quick action. This is exactly what part of the party leadership decided to propose.
Femi Olaniyi, who heads the State Presidents Forum and also heads the Lagos chapter, made this clear. In a statement released Friday, he said the forum supported the expulsions and presented Gabam’s departure as a “victory of righteousness over evil.” It’s dramatic language, I admit – but drama is part of politics. People choose words like that because they want to send a message: stop, this will not be tolerated. Olaniyi also thanked the National Working Committee for its follow-up. He said it was a relief for many in the party to see this harmful influence removed.
Also Read: Corey Lewandowski’s Next Move – Or Maybe Not: A Closer Look
However, there are several ways to read the relief
The relief is real, yes. But relief does not equal resolution. The decision came after months of investigation and disciplinary action, and the final action was taken at an NWC meeting in Abuja. It suggests a procedure – a process, hearings, evidence examined, the whole institutional apparatus. But the process can also hide politics. People I spoke with – not all within the SDP, but only observers – point out that expulsions can sometimes be a way of settling internal scores. It happens. It’s complicated.
So while many rank-and-file members welcomed the move as the party’s protection against “reckless behavior and misdeeds,” as Olaniyi put it, others are more cautious. They want to know what comes next: will there be transparency about the findings of the investigation? 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. This uncertainty leaves room for doubt – and new rivalries.
What this means for the party now
Removing a controversial character can have a stabilizing effect; it can also open up competition. With Gabam gone, the leadership dynamic changes. New ambitions will surface. State presidents and other leaders will attempt to define what “cleaner” leadership looks like in practice. There is opportunity for constructive change: tighter financial controls, clearer reporting and better internal oversight. I hope so: these reforms will be more important than nice words.
But change is not 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 their support. Still, it’s the kind of statement that rings true in the moment. Sustainable change will depend on follow-up. Will the party implement safeguards to prevent similar abuses? Will they be transparent about how funds are managed and who approves spending? I tend to think there is a real appetite for reform among many members, but appetite without action feeds no one.
Small victories, big questions
There is truth in Olaniyi’s words: history will not forget Gabam’s years as national president. This can be accurate – both the positive and negative parts. He will be remembered for his tenure, and those memories will be debated. Yet history also tends to ignore the details we all want — the gist of what really happened with party funds, the chain of approval, the audits that failed. These are the elements that need to be highlighted if the SDP wants to be taken seriously.
And then there is the human element. Party politics is also about people – their reputations, their careers, their livelihoods. Expulsion is punitive and public. For many members, removing a problematic leader seems like a moral housekeeping measure. For the expelled leaders and their supporters, it could feel like a betrayal, or at least a painful setback. Both views are real and both matter in 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 opportunity to strengthen institutions and demonstrate consistent accountability. Or it could be a temporary patch, a symbolic gesture that masks deeper problems. Either outcome is possible.
What is clear is that members wanted action and they got it. The State Presidents’ Forum publicly supported the expulsions and presented them as a necessary step to protect the party. The NWC followed through after months of investigations and disciplinary proceedings. This is the superficial story. However, the real work has only just begun: reforming processes, restoring trust and ensuring that the coming months do not repeat the same patterns.
Also read: From Kid in a Yearbook to the White House: JD Vance’s surprising change of face
If you care about the SDP – or the proper functioning of political parties – keep asking the tough questions. Demand details of investigations, track reforms, and observe whether declarations of change translate into concrete rules and consistent, transparent practices. This will tell you more than any statement.