The leadership of the Labour Party under Julius Abure says it is set to challenge the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja which recognises the Esther Nenadi Usman–led Caretaker Committee as the party’s interim leadership, describing the ruling as flawed and inconsistent with existing judicial precedents.
According to Mediaplusng.com, the Abure-led National Working Committee announces its decision shortly after Justice Peter Lifu delivers the judgment, insisting that the court misinterprets the April 4, 2025 verdict of the Supreme Court on the leadership crisis rocking the opposition party.
In a statement issued in Abuja by the National Publicity Secretary of the Labour Party, Obiora Ifoh, the party argues that the Federal High Court lacks the powers to appoint or recognise any leadership for a political party, stressing that such matters remain the internal affairs of the party as consistently held by the Supreme Court.
The party insists, as gathered by Mediaplusng.com, that the judgment contradicts clear pronouncements of the apex court which state that no court has jurisdiction to impose leadership on a political party, warning that the ruling could set a dangerous precedent for Nigeria’s democracy.
Labour Party leadership says it is confident that the Court of Appeal will correct what it describes as judicial errors, adding that the Federal High Court is not the final arbiter on the matter. The party maintains that it will pursue all lawful means to protect its constitutional structures.
Reacting to the judgment, party officials also raise concerns about what they describe as unusual developments surrounding the case, including alleged procedural issues and what they claim is a denial of fair hearing during the proceedings.
The Abure faction alleges that the matter was reassigned between judges under questionable circumstances and that the court declined to give the party sufficient opportunity to respond to counter affidavits before proceeding to judgment.
Party leaders further allege that celebrations and public statements by their political opponents before the judgment fuel suspicion about the process, claiming that some individuals openly predicted the outcome weeks ahead of the ruling.
They argue that such actions undermine public confidence in the judiciary and create the impression that the outcome was predetermined, an allegation they say will form part of their appeal.
On the substance of the judgment, the Labour Party insists that the Supreme Court never declared that the tenure of its National Working Committee had expired, but merely declined jurisdiction on the matter on the grounds that party leadership disputes are internal affairs.
The party maintains that its national convention, held in March 2024, lawfully produced the current leadership before the expiration of the previous executive’s tenure, insisting that no leadership vacuum exists within the party.
Labour Party officials also fault the court for declaring the existence of a vacuum without examining the legality and validity of the party’s national convention, which they say remains binding and legitimate.
They describe the recognition of a caretaker committee as inconsistent with the Labour Party constitution, adding that the court erred by interpreting the Supreme Court judgment in a manner that contradicts its clear intent.
Despite the setback, the party urges its members and supporters nationwide to remain calm, disciplined, and committed to the party’s ideals while the legal process continues.
The leadership reassures members that the party is not for sale and will not succumb to pressure, intimidation, or financial influence, vowing to defend what it describes as the collective mandate of party members.
As the internal crisis persists, political observers warn that the prolonged leadership dispute could affect the party’s preparedness for future elections unless resolved swiftly through legal and internal mechanisms.
For now, the Abure-led faction says it is focused on pursuing justice through the appellate courts, expressing confidence that the judiciary will ultimately uphold the principles of party autonomy and internal democracy.
