Vested interests in the Labour Party (LP) are giving conflicting interpretations to yesterday’s judgement of the Supreme Court on the legitimacy of Mr. Julius Abure as the party’s National Chairman.
The apex court set aside the January 17 judgment of the Court of Appeal in Abuja recognising him as such.
The party’s caretaker committee hailed the court’s pronouncement as victory for the rule of law and a significant milestone for democracy, while the House of Representatives caucus of the LP called it an elixir for its stability and reinvention.
But the legal adviser of the Abure-led national executive committee, Mr Kehinde Edun and the national publicity secretary, Obiora Ifoh, alleged misrepresentation of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
They said the court clearly validated Abure’s leadership.
In a unanimous ruling yesterday, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to have pronounced Abure National Chairman of the LP, having earlier found that the substance of the case was about the party’s leadership.
The judgment was on the appeal marked SC/CV/56/2025 filed by Senator Nenadi Usman and another.
In the lead judgment prepared by Justice John Okoro but read by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, the court declared that issue of leadership was an internal affair of a political party over which courts lack jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court noted that the court below found that the main relief in the suit filed by the LP before the Federal High Court, Abuja was predicated on the leadership of the party, and therefore not justiciable.
It added that having found that the issue of leadership was not justiciable, the Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong to have strayed beyond their jurisdiction into the realm where they pronounced Julius Abure as National Chairman of the LP.
“In summary, both the trial court and the lower court have no jurisdiction to have entertained the suit by the first respondent (LP)” the court said.
“Flowing from above, the decisions of the trial court and the court below, recognising Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the first respondent are hereby set aside.”
The court proceeded to strike out the suit filed by the LP before the Federal High Court for lack of jurisdiction.
It asked political parties and their members to always endeavour to allow their constitutions and rules guide them in choosing their leaders as well as their candidates.
The court noted that by doing so the incessant wrangling and recourse to court would reduce.
It advised party officials whose tenure has expired to not hesitate to vacate office.
The court allowed the appeal filed by Senator Nenadi Usman and one other and held that it was meritorious.
It proceeded to dismiss the cross-appeal marked SC/CV/56A/2025 filed by the Abure faction of the LP for being unmeritorious.
It’s victory for rule of law, says Nenadi Usman
Senator Nenadi Usman, reacting to the ruling, said it was not a time for triumphalism as there was no victor or vanquished.
“What matters most is our shared commitment to the ideals and aspirations of the Labour Party and the Nigerian people,” she told Abure and his supporters.
She added: “We must now come together, united in purpose and vision, to move the party forward.
“The Labour Party remains one indivisible family, steadfast in its mission to create a new Nigeria founded on justice, equity and people-centred governance.
“We call on all party members, supporters and stakeholders to remain calm, focused and committed to the democratic ideals that bind us.”
Reps caucus: It’s an elixir for LP stability, says Reps caucus
The party’s caucus in the House of Representatives described the court’s verdict as an elixir for the LP’s stability and reinvention.
Leader of the caucus, Victor Ogene, said the judgment should serve as a warning to leaders who play god in a democracy, while the development would go a long way in revitalizing the LP.
He said: “Following this clear-cut judgment, the Labour Party will hasten to implement necessary mechanisms to restore internal peace and get the party back on track, in order to reassure teeming members of the party of its viability for future elections and its commitment to leadership that prioritises the interests and welfare of the people.
“In fact, by next week, we expect the National Caretaker Committee (NCC) led by respected former Minister of Finance, Senator Esther Nenadi Usman, to convene an all-inclusive stakeholders meeting to chart the way forward.”
He stressed that the party’s leadership crisis could have been prevented if the ousted chairman and his team had heeded the caucus’ advice or addressed the concerns of other stakeholders who urged caution and greater sensitivity in managing the party’s affairs.
“In March 2024, LP Reps called for the postponement of the National Convention of the party scheduled to take place by the end of that month, in order to allow for further consultations in the light of the party’s lingering leadership skirmishes.
“The Caucus had emphasised at the time that the party’s health and sustainability were paramount, given its internal conflicts. And as direct representatives of the people, they felt the party needed time to resolve its leadership issues and operational problems before holding a potentially divisive convention.
“But rather than heed that patriotic call, the party leadership proceeded to unleash tirades against them, abusing them in the media and threatening that they would be denied the party tickets for re-election in 2027.
“That was not only insensitive but undemocratic and disrespectful to the caucus, whose only concern was the peace, unity, sustainability and progress of the party.
“It is this uncertainty of not being sure of getting party ticket in the next general elections that has made the Caucus to lose as much as six members.”
There’s misinterpretation — Ifoh
Obiora Ifoh dismissed media reports of the court’s judgment as misinterpretation.
In his view contained in a statement moment after the verdict yesterday, Ifoh said: “The Supreme Court judgment didn’t sack Labour Party national chairman, Julius Abure. Rather, it rightly upheld the preceding and accumulated high courts and appeal court judgments upholding the immutability of responsibility of Labour Party structures to choose its leaders.
“The judgment did not also set aside the Appeal Court judgment in Labour Party vs Ebiseni and 2 others (CA/ABJ/CV/1172/2024) delivered on 13 November 2024, which affirmed Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the Labour Party. The judgment is still valid and subsisting and has not been appealed.
“The implication is very clear. Abure remains the Labour Party national chairman. The question is: who are the leaders of the party? The party constitution is clear as to who are the leaders of the party. The leadership of the party has been the National Working Committee led by Barrister Julius Abure.”
The party’s constitution, he stressed, was clear on who has the power to call for the national convention or any national meeting and cited Article 14 of the 2024 constitution as amended, which gives powers to the National Secretary of the party “to issue notices of meetings of the national convention, national executive council, the national working committee in consultation with and approval of the National Chairman.”
He said: “Accordingly, the national convention of the party was called by the leadership of the party on the 27 of March 2024 where the leaders of the party emerged. The report of the National Convention is already with INEC, and that leadership is recognised by INEC.
“The gathering of people in Umuahia is clearly not in line with the constitution, and therefore, the celebration by some persons that the leadership of Julius Abure has been sacked were only trying to be mischievous and misleading and that the Supreme Court didn’t say so.
“We are therefore calling on all true members of the Labour Party to abide by the judgment of the apex court to always resort to internal party mechanisms in resolving party affairs and not to always rush to the court.
“The position of the Supreme Court is that the structures of the party are capable of handling any matters as it concerns its affairs, and as it is today, the national chairman remains Barrister Julius Abure.”
Abure remains national chair, LP Legal Adviser insists
Ifoh’s position was shared by Kehinde Edun.
Speaking on the sidelines of a news conference organised by the leadership of the party to clarify issues arising from the Supreme Court judgment yesterday in Abuja, Edun said the apex court further validated Abure’s position as the National Chairman of the party.
His words: “What happened was that Sen. Nenadi Usman and one other person filed an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court.
“The argument was that courts should not be interfering in the internal affairs of political parties. That it is not the business of the court to say this is the chairman or this is not the chairman.
“The Supreme Court agreed with them and said that everybody should respect party supremacy;
that whatever the party has said is final, andthat nobody should come to court to seek the declaration concerning the leadership of the political party.
“The convention held and elected the National Executive Committee led by Barr. Julius Abure, whose tenure is still holding, and that’s what the court said, that everybody should respect that,” he said.
The legal Adviser said that the judgment was indeed an indictment on the Usman-led caretaker committee.
While commending the judgment, Edun said that it meant that political parties are strong, adding: “with the verdict, the Supreme Court is supporting the country’s democracy.
“What it means is that political parties should sort out their affairs internally. They shouldn’t be running to the court to solve matters that they can solve on their own,” he said.
The legal adviser, therefore, called on all dissenting voices within Labour Party to come together to move the party forward and prepare it for the 2027 general elections.
Credit: The Nation
 are giving conflicting interpretations to yesterday’s judgement of the Supreme Court on the){kind=link}