INEC’s Incapacity To Determine The Leadership Of Labour Party In The Face Of The Supreme Court Judgement

 

The battle of the various factions in the Labour Party rose to a crescendo after the Supreme Court judgement of April 4th, 2025. The judgement, which unambiguously sent parties to their house to decide their fate, has been variously misconstrued, misinterpreted, and misrepresented. The judgement has been erroneously interpreted to suit the various positions that the factions hold.

While it’s common to see parties on a matter take different and often opposing stand, the position of some of these people in the factions is clearly a function of ignorance of the facts of the judgement and the electoral law guiding the relationship of INEC with political parties.

Those expecting INEC to decide the leadership of the Labour Party are living in illusion and shall be disappointed at the end of the day. It is naturally ludicrous, magically incredulous, and legally ridiculous to expect INEC to tell Labour Party, we reject Abure and accept Nenadi. And this is why:

1.    INEC has never been a member of any political party to enable it partake in appointing or electing a leader for a party.

2.    INEC is not a Director of political parties to decide who leads or who doesn’t lead a political party.

3.    INEC is an ‘impartial’ umpire with no partisan interest to get enmeshed in the activities of political parties concerning leadership.

4.    INEC is to monitor, receive and acknowledge notices of activities of political parties.

5.    INEC is to receive list of officers of political parties submitted to it. It has no inherent or residual power to vet such list neither any power to effect changes on it.

6.    INEC cannot recognize a leadership whose formation and composition is alien to it. Under section 82 of the Electoral Act, INEC must be notified of conventions, congresses, conferences, etc., especially those touching leadership change. But the Nenadi’s Committee never notified INEC of its existence until the Supreme Court judgement.

7.    The said Committee was not also formed in line with the constitution of the party. You can’t form a committee which purpose is for a change of leadership and the National Executive Council, the National Working Committee, and the National Congress are not involved.

8.     If the Supreme Court washed its hands off in a matter dealing with the leadership of a party, where does INEC derived it’s power to do so?

9.    INEC cannot import extraneous issues into the Supreme Court judgement if it doesn’t want to bathe itself with devil beans of legal fireworks on its bare body.

10.    The Supreme Court judgement didn’t uphold the appeal filed by Nenadi Usman because it disqualified Abure as chairman of Labour Party. It was upheld because the appeal bordered on the error of the lower courts for pronouncing on the leadership of the party which they ought not to.

11.    In the same vein, the Supreme Court didn’t dismiss the Cross-appeal of Julius Abure because he was no longer the chairman of Labour Party. Abure’s cross-appeal was dismissed because it was still on the issue of leadership which the courts have no jurisdiction to mediate on.

12.    The summary of the Supreme Court judgement is that Labour Party should go home and resolve their leadership challenge by itself. And the only way this can be done is for the factions to come together, eat the humble pie, and embrace the olive branch.

13.    What was the state of affairs before the commencement of the suit that went up to the Supreme Court? The state of affairs was that The party organized a National Congress at Nnewi which produced Julius Abure as Chairman for the second term. The Congress could be morally or politically wrong but it’s constitutionally and legally right. And it’s this constitutional and legal rightness that reinforces the authority and authenticity of Julius Abure as the substantive chairman of Labour Party.

14.    Consequently, looking up to INEC to determine the leadership of the party is tantamount to expecting a cock to lay eggs. It’s naturally impossible, scientifically labourous, and legally mountainous.

Just stating the obvious and true position of the issue, no preferences.

Barr. Ajibola Ekor Ubi
08066226032
ajibolaubi@gmail.com.