The Caretaker Committee of the Labour Party (LP) has announced its intention to seek further clarification from the Supreme Court regarding the ongoing leadership dispute within the party. This follows the recent ruling by the Court of Appeal, which upheld Julius Abure as the party’s National Chairman.
On Friday, the Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Justice Hamma Barka, affirmed its November 2024 decision that recognized Abure as the LP’s chairman. The court ruled that this decision had not been overturned by any subsequent court order. However, the Caretaker Committee, led by Senator Nenadi Usman and Secretary Senator Darlington Nwokocha, expressed concerns over aspects of the ruling and indicated that these issues can only be resolved by the Supreme Court.
In a statement, the Caretaker Committee emphasized that the matter needed further legal clarification, noting that they had instructed their lawyer to seek guidance from the apex court. The committee also appealed for patience from the party’s supporters across the country as the legal process unfolds.
The leadership dispute within the Labour Party traces back to September 4, 2024, when a faction of the party, including its 2023 presidential candidate, Peter Obi, and the only Labour Party governor, Dr. Alex Otti, convened in Umuahia, Abia State. During this meeting, they formed the Caretaker Committee, aiming to organize an all-inclusive national convention for the party before Abure’s legal team took the matter to court.
The Caretaker Committee also addressed what they termed an “erroneous and unsolicited finding” by the Court of Appeal, which in its judgment on November 13, 2024, mistakenly referred to Abure as being “admitted as the National Chairman of the Labour Party.” The committee clarified that this judgment, which pertains to the nomination of a governorship candidate for Ondo State, was unrelated to the leadership dispute and should not be seen as part of the ongoing case.
Furthermore, the Caretaker Committee reiterated the established legal principle that courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties, including leadership and management issues. They emphasized that the leadership dispute is a matter for the party itself to resolve, with the Supreme Court’s clarification being sought to provide the final legal resolution.
