Julius Abure-led leadership of the Labour Party has rejected the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja which recognised the Nenadi Usman-led caretaker committee as the authentic leadership of the party, saying it will challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal.
Gatekeepers News reports that the party’s position was made public on Wednesday in Abuja by Obiora Ifoh, national publicity secretary of the Abure-led faction.
He reacted to the ruling delivered earlier in the day by Justice Peter Lifu, who held that the tenure of Julius Abure as national chairman had expired and consequently directed the Independent National Electoral Commission to recognise the Usman-led committee.
Ifoh said the court arrived at its decision by wrongly interpreting the April 4, 2025 judgment of the supreme court. According to him, the apex court had clearly stated that courts lack the power to appoint leaders for political parties because leadership matters fall within internal party affairs.
“The judgement was a clear contradiction against the supreme court judgement which clearly stated that no court has the power to appoint leadership for any political party and that leadership issue is an internal affair of the political party,” the statement reads.”
“The party will go on appeal and put its position before the court of appeal.”
He said the party was yet to obtain the certified true copy of the judgment, adding that a full legal response would be taken once the document is reviewed.
“Although we are yet to see the certified true copy of the judgement in order to fully make comment about it, our position will become stronger when we see the CTC of the judgement, but generally, from the brief we have gotten so far, it is clear that the party will appeal the judgement,” he said.
The spokesperson further alleged that the party had concerns about how the case was handled, pointing to what he described as unusual developments during the proceedings.
“When the matter was first filed, it was assigned to Justice Omotosho, and suddenly there was a somersault, as another matter was filed which was immaterial, and the one sent to Omotosho was withdrawn and now sent to Justice Peter Lifu; that was a red flag for us,” he said.
“The court refused us the opportunity to respond to issues raised in the counter affidavit filed by other parties and quickly adjourned for judgement.”
Ifoh also claimed that the opposing faction celebrated the outcome even before the judgment was formally delivered.
“Our adversaries were all over the place, jubilating weeks before, over a judgement that had not been delivered, telling everyone that they had already won,” he said.
He reminded Nigerians that the Court of Appeal had previously recognised the Abure-led National Working Committee as the legitimate leadership of the party.
“Nigerians should remember that the court of appeal pronounced Julius Abure’s national working committee as the authentic leadership of the party,” he said.
According to him, the supreme court did not expressly rule that Abure’s tenure had expired but merely declined jurisdiction on the matter.
“The supreme court simply declined jurisdiction in entertaining the matter because it was an internal affair of the party,” he said.
Ifoh also defended the party’s March 2024 national convention, insisting it was held before the expiration of the previous executive and therefore did not create any leadership vacuum.
“The tenure of the executive was to expire in June 2024, but the national convention was held in March 2024 before the expiration of the then executive, which created the present leadership of the party,” he added.
“The party is not for sale, and no amount of financial power will make us abdicate our leadership position.”
The Labour Party has been embroiled in a prolonged leadership crisis since 2023, with multiple court cases, factional claims and conflicting decisions creating uncertainty within the party.
The dispute has also affected the party’s internal cohesion and preparations ahead of future elections, as both factions continue to lay claim to legitimacy while seeking judicial backing.
