The leadership crisis rocking the Labour Party, LP, should not persist if the factions to the case respected the Supreme Court judgment and did not make their own interpretations to the judgment.

It will be recalled that the National Executive Committee, NEC, of the party had resolved to remove Abure as the National Chairman.

To fill the leadership vacuum, the party constituted a 29-member caretaker committee, with the former Finance Minister, Senator Usman as Chairman and Hon. Nwokocha as Secretary.

The decision was the outcome of an expanded stakeholders’ meeting of the party that was hosted in Umuahia by governor Otti of Abia State.

The meeting where Abure was sacked from office was chaired by his former ally, Obi.

However, dissatisfied with the decision, Abure approached the Federal High Court in Abuja to validate his position as the National Chairman of the party.

Among other things, he complained that INEC had stopped relating with him as the National Chairman of the party, lamenting that the electoral body shut him out of activities pertaining to the last governorship poll in Ondo State.

Abure claimed that he was re-elected back to his office at a convention of the party he said was held at Nnewi, Anambra state, on March 27, 2024.

In a judgment he delivered on October 8, 2024, Justice Emeka Nwite of the high court, upheld Abure’s case and directed INEC to recognize him as the National Chairman of the LP.

The judgment of the high court was on January 17, affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Abuja which handed the leaferi of the party to Abure.

However, in a unanimous decision on April 4, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court, pulled the rug from under the feet of Abure.

The apex court, in its lead verdict that was prepared by Justice Inyang Okoro, nullified the judgments of the two lower courts on the premise that they lacked the jurisdiction to dabble into the domestic affair of the LP by validating Abure’s claim to the national chairmanship position.

Reproduced verbatim, hereunder, are extracts from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal marked: SC/CV/56/2025, which had the LP and INEC as the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

“The reason for the non-justifiability of internal disputes of a political party is simple, and that is that in the eyes of the law, a political party is a corporate entity with its constitution, rules, regulations and guidelines which are binding on members who having joined freely have consented to be so bound.

“Political parties must learn to adhere to their constitution and guidelines in the conduct of their domestic affairs. The court must not have a say in every internal activities of a political party save where the national constitution or a statute expressly confers upon the court such jurisdiction or where the dispute is about commission of a crime or involves the violation of a contractual or the commission of a tort.

“I have stated earlier in this judgment that the learned trial judge, upon a careful review of the case of the 1st Respondent, including the exhibits attached thereto and perhaps the counter-affidavits of the respective defendants before him, came to the conclusion that the core of the case was the leadership dispute within the 1st Respondent which the court lacked the jurisdiction to scrutinize.

“He ought to have stopped there and struck out the suit. Going further to make pronouncements, particularly on relief five (5) thereat, amounted to stealthily arrogating to himself the jurisdiction to delve into the internal affairs of the 1st Respondent to pronounce Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the party. This ought not to have been done.

“I have also scrupulously read the judgment in appeal No. CA/Abj/CV/1172/2024: Labour Party (LP) Vs. Chief Olusola Nehemiah Ebiseni which the court below referenced in affirming Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the party.

“To my utter amazement I find that the subject matter of that appeal was on who was the authentic candidate of Labour Party for Ondo State Governorship Election held on 16th November, 2024 between Chief Nehemiah Ebiseni and Dr. Olurunfemi Ayodele Festus.

“The dispute was about whose name among the two contenders the INEC should publish as the candidate of the party.

“The judgment of the trial court favoured Chief Ebiseni who emerged subsequent to a fresh election conducted on 18th July, 2024 following the alleged voluntary withdrawal of Dr. Ayodele having found that he did not withdraw from the contest.

“There is no issue in that appeal where the leadership dispute of Labour Party was specifically put before the court for determination.

“In the instant case, the court below having found that the 1st Respondent’s main relief was relief number five (5) which was predicated on the leadership of the 1st Respondent and thus, not justiciable, strayed beyond its jurisdiction into the realm where even angels dread to tread to pronounce Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the 1st Respondent. Their Lordships of the lower court were wrong to so do.

“The principle of law applicable here is as expressed in the Latin Maxim: Nihil non-ecpectant aedificare store meaning that “one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand.”

“The 1st Respondent’s suit at the trial court had no legs to stand in the circumstance and deserves to be struck out. See Macfoy V. UAC (1962) AC 152 at 160.

“Permit me at this point to reiterate the trite position of the law that if a court is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the main relief in an action, it will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the ancillary claim and moreso if the ancillary claim will inevitably involve a discussion of the main claim, as in this case. See Tukur Vs. Government of Gongola State (supra).

“The three issues submitted for determination are hereby jointly resolved in favour of the Appellants.

“In summary, both the trial court and the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of this 1st Respondent which main relief, as they both rightly observed, was inserted as relief number five (5) as though it was an appendage.

“Consequent upon the foregoing, the decisions of both trial court and the court below recognizing Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the 1st Respondent are hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction.

“In the same vein, the 1st Respondent’s Cross-Appeal in Appeal No. SC/CV/56A/2025 being an offshoot of the same judgment of the court below, is hereby dismissed.

“Before I am done, may I admonished political parties and their members to endeavor to always allow their constitutions, rules, regulations and guidelines to guide them in choosing their officers as well as candidates.

“That way, incessant interval rift which always find their way to court would be reduced. If the constitution of a political party has prescribed duration for tenure of office of an officer, such officer should be humble enough to leave at the expiration of the tenure.

“In the final analysis, I find this appeal to be meritorious and is hereby allowed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.” (Saturday Vanguard)