LP Factional National Chairman, Julius Abure says Supreme Court move responds to fresh litigation, denies responsibility for Labour Party crisis.
Labour Party Factional National Chairman, Julius Abure, has defended his decision to approach the Supreme Court, insisting he is not re-litigating settled issues but responding to fresh legal action initiated by opposing members within the party.
This is following the Court of Appeal recognition of the Nenadi Usman-led leadership.
“I need to make it categorically clear here that I’m not the one that is re-litigating on what the Supreme Court has litigated on. Nigerians must know that the Labour Party under my leadership is not the troublemaker in the party.”
Responding to claims that his leadership tenure expired in 2024, Abure maintained that a fresh mandate was secured before the deadline.
“The tenure didn’t expire. The tenure was to expire on the 9th of June, 2024. And before the expiration of tenure, on March 27, 2024, a new national convention was held where the current leadership emerged,” he said.
Addressing concerns over his removal from the electoral body’s records, Abure said the action was only taken recently following a Federal High Court ruling earlier this year. He maintained that his name remained on the Independent National Electoral Commission portal up until January, reinforcing his claim of continued legitimacy prior to the court’s decision.
“That was recently. That was recently after the Federal High Court in January or February this year made that pronouncement. So, all along, up until January this year, my name has been in INEC.”
Reacting to the ₦10 million fine imposed by the appellate court, Abure acknowledged the weight of the sanction, describing it as significant.
“Well, the Court of Appeal imposed 10 million naira. That’s a whole lot,” he noted.
Continuing his defence, the LP factional national chairman argued that recent court rulings contradict the position earlier established by the Supreme Court, which held that party leadership disputes are internal matters.
“You will recall that the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal went into the issue of the convention of the party and pronounced me as National Chairman of the party. That was what Nenadi Usman appealed against to the Supreme Court, which made the Supreme Court say issues of leadership are internal affairs of the party and that the two lower courts were not supposed to go into the issue of leadership,” he explained.
He criticised the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal for what he described as interference, insisting that their pronouncements—particularly recognising Nenadi Usman—run contrary to both judicial precedent and provisions of the Electoral Act.
“The same Nenadi Usman went to the Federal High Court in November this year and got the court to make a pronouncement, pronouncing her as the chairman of the party. And that is the crux of our matter: that the two courts are wrong to have made such a pronouncement because it is contradictory for the court to have made a pronouncement… because that was the position of the Supreme Court,” he noted.
Abure suggested he remains open to reconciliation, noting that he had previously extended an olive branch after favourable rulings at the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal.
“When I won in the Federal High Court and also when I won in the Court of Appeal, I extended an olive branch. Otherwise, this crisis wouldn’t have got to this level. You will agree that the party has lost a lot with this crisis. As of today, the party would have been one of the biggest parties—the biggest opposition in Nigeria—if they had accepted my olive branch, which I extended to them over a year ago when I won in the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal,” he said.
Commenting on speculation about a possible return of Peter Obi to the Labour Party, Abure said any decision would depend on the party’s future direction and legal outcome at the Supreme Court.
“She’s running the party now; that’s her opinion. If the Supreme Court brings us back, we’ll decide what to do. And if there’s time, we’ll decide what to do.”
He noted that no formal indication of a return has been made by Obi, and expressed doubt that such a move would happen, arguing that the party had previously given him leadership opportunities which he did not maximise.
“Peter Obi has not said he’s coming; he has not made any such offer. Of course, not to me—maybe to them. But I don’t think that Peter Obi will come back to the party. I don’t think so; I don’t feel so. In fact, I thought that Peter Obi had all the opportunity in the world to have managed the Labour Party effectively. Peter Obi mismanaged the party, mismanaged his fortune, and so coming back to the party to come and do what? When he had all the opportunities, we all deferred to Peter, gave him the opportunity, surrendered leadership to him, and Peter Obi could not provide leadership in the party,” he stressed.
Responding to accusations that he is responsible for the party’s internal crisis, Julius Abure rejected the claim, instead blaming tensions within the Labour Party on actions involving Peter Obi and Governor Alex Otti.
“I want to make it very clear that Peter Obi and Alex Otti created the crisis in the party. The party was moving easily, sailing; it was playing the role of opposition under my leadership. The crisis in the party actually started when Peter Obi and Alex Otti went to Umuahia to set up a caretaker committee. That was not my creation. I didn’t create the crisis. I was a unifier in the party, built the party. I took the party from nothing to where it was. It was the leadership that we provided that attracted Peter Obi to join the party. So, Alex Otti and Peter Obi are the ones that went to Umuahia and created a faction in the party, and that’s where we are. So, for me, you have seen that he has become a rolling stone that is difficult to gather moss,” he said.
