BY CHISOM ONUOHA

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court judgement concerning the leadership crisis in the Labour Party, considerable confusion has ensued regarding who rightfully occupies the position of National Chairman and which faction INEC should officially recognize. This advisory aims to provide legal clarity and guidance which, regrettably, some legal advisers have failed to offer – perhaps due to personal or political considerations.

To begin with, Barr. Julius Abure can no longer lay valid claim to the position of Chairman of the Labour Party following the clear pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in its recently delivered judgement.

Let us recall that Abure’s initial tenure as Chairman was sustained by an earlier court order. Upon its expiration, he proceeded to organize a national convention without INEC’s presence, citing internal arrangements. INEC, the nation’s electoral umpire, declined to monitor or recognize the said convention on the grounds that it was not conducted in line with the Labour Party Constitution. Subsequently, Abure instituted an action against INEC, seeking judicial affirmation of his chairmanship.

At the trial court, the matter was rightly struck out on the basis that leadership disputes within a political party are purely internal affairs and therefore not justiciable. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeal – while affirming the same principle of non-justiciability – oddly proceeded to declare Abure the National Chairman. This contradiction formed the crux of the matter escalated to the Supreme Court.

In its considered judgement, the Supreme Court rightly set aside the judgement of the Court of Appeal and dismissed Abure’s cross-appeal seeking affirmation as Chairman. In doing so, the apex court restored the trial court’s position that the matter falls squarely within the realm of the party’s internal governance and that the judiciary lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate on it.

What does this mean?

Abure’s claim to the chairmanship is no longer tenable. The position previously granted to him by judicial order has expired. His recent attempts to reclaim the office through an unrecognized convention and subsequent litigation have failed. INEC’s original position – to the effect that his tenure had ended – remains valid.

In the absence of a validly elected national leadership, the interim or caretaker leadership put in place by key party stakeholders – including the party’s 2023 Presidential Candidate, the current Governor of Abia State, and elected legislators – should now be recognized as the de facto authority of the party. This interim structure should manage party affairs pending the conduct of a credible national convention that will usher in a duly elected executive.

As for Alhaji Lamidi Apapa, his sudden re-emergence and claim to the party’s leadership should be viewed with suspicion and outrightly disregarded. His claim is not only unfounded but lacks transparency, and appears intended solely to cause further confusion within the party.

In light of these developments, INEC is urged to carefully study the Supreme Court judgement and act in accordance with both the spirit and letter of the law. The electoral commission must refrain from indulging any factional manipulation or self-imposed leadership that lacks legitimacy.

Nigeria’s democracy cannot thrive in an atmosphere of chaos and institutional compromise. INEC must uphold its constitutional responsibility as an impartial electoral umpire by recognizing the proper structure within the Labour Party and facilitating the emergence of a legitimate leadership through due democratic processes. The time to act with integrity and clarity is NOW.

This advisory is freely offered in service of democratic order.

• Mr. Chisom Franklin Onuoha (ABR) is a Lagos-based Legal Practitioner.
• The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the author and do not represent the opinion of CITY LAWYER Magazine, its publisher and privies