How Supreme Court Sacked Abure

Despite Julius Abure’s claim that the Supreme Court did not sack him as the National Chairman of the Labour Party, facts emerging show that not only was his cross appeal  dismissed by the court, but his tenure is said to have expired

One of the consequences of the increasingly vague court judgments in Nigeria is that litigants often interpret rulings to serve their personal interests. This was evident in the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court judgment on the Labour Party’s leadership crisis involving Julius Abure and Senator Nnenadi Usman.

The judgment, which set aside earlier decisions of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal that recognised Mr. Julius Abure as the Labour Party’s National Chairman, has sparked varied interpretations. Both Abure and the Chairman of the Caretaker Committee, Senator Nenadi Usman, claim the ruling favours them.

In its judgement on the appeal filed by Usman, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court held that both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal lacked the jurisdiction to pronounce Abure as LP national chairman, having earlier found that the substantive issue before the court was party leadership — a matter deemed an internal affair.

The lead judgement, prepared by Justice John Okoro and read by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, noted that since the case filed at the Federal High Court centred on LP’s leadership, it was not justiciable. Consequently, the apex court set aside both the trial and appellate court decisions recognising Abure as chairman and struck out the LP’s suit for lack of jurisdiction.

It also dismissed a cross-appeal filed by the Abure faction, describing it as unmeritorious, while allowing the main appeal brought by Senator Usman and another party.

Immediately the judgment was delivered, LP’s National Legal Adviser, Mr. Kehinde Edun, said the Supreme Court had clarified that courts should not decide on political party leadership matters. He said the ruling validated the convention that elected Abure and the current NEC, whose tenure he maintained was still in effect.

According to him, the judgement did not invalidate the November 13, 2024 Appeal Court decision affirming Abure’s leadership, as it was not appealed.

On their part, both Abure and Usman interpreted the judgement in their favour.

For instance, in a statement shortly after the ruling, Senator Usman, who chairs the LP’s caretaker committee, described the judgement as a triumph for the rule of law and democracy. She urged LP members and stakeholders to remain calm and focused, emphasising the party’s unity in building a new Nigeria based on justice and equity.

“There is no victor and no vanquished. What matters most is our shared commitment to the ideals and aspirations of the Labour Party and the Nigerian people. We must now come together, united in purpose and vision, to move the party forward,” she said.

However, Abure, through a statement signed by the LP National Publicity Secretary, Obiora Ifoh, insisted that the Supreme Court judgement did not remove him from office. He argued that the ruling merely held that the courts lacked jurisdiction to interfere in internal party matters, thus striking out both Senator Usman’s appeal and LP’s original suit.

He added that the Appeal Court judgement in Labour Party vs Ebiseni & Others (CA/ABJ/CV/1172/2024), which upheld his leadership on November 13, 2024, remained valid and had not been appealed.

Background of the Matter

Abure had always been tainted by controversy. In February 2024, the Labour Party’s National Treasurer accused him of misappropriating N3.5 billion, a claim which he denied and threatened legal action. The allegation led to calls from party members for his removal.

Earlier in April 2023, the FCT High Court issued an order restraining Abure from parading himself as the national chairman of the party. While ruling on an ex parte application, the judge, Justice Hamza Muazu, also restrained Farouk Ibrahim, national secretary; Clement Ojukwu, national organising secretary; and Mr Opara from parading themselves as national officers of the party.

However, the biggest challenge against his position was when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) invalidated his leadership after the party’s national congress in Awka, where he purportedly re-emerged as the national chairman of the party, saying the national convention violated the constitution and Electoral Act.

The electoral body said the party failed to meet legal requirements for holding the convention, insisting that Abure’s tenure as LP national chair expired in June 2024.

To bring confidence back to the party, the Governor of Abia State, Dr. Alex Otti and the presidential candidate of the party, Peter Obi, his running mate, Datti Baba-Ahmed and other members of the National Executive Committee (NEC) convened a meeting in Umuahia on September 4, 2024, where they sacked the entire Abure-led National Working Committee (NWC) and appointed Nenadi Usman, a former Minister of Finance and ex-senator representing Kaduna South, to lead a 29-member caretaker committee and facilitate the election of a new party leadership within 90 days.

This led Abure to file a suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja, which, in a judgement delivered on October 8, 2024, affirmed the Abure-led leadership and the March 2024 Nnewi convention that produced the party executives.

The judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, had ordered INEC to recognise Abure as the legitimate chairman of the party.

Upon an appeal on January 17, 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled that its earlier decision in November 2024, recognising Abure as the party’s chairman, remained valid and had not been overturned by any court.

Justice Hamma Barka, who read the lead judgement, held that the appellate court did not consider the two separate appeals filed by the appellants since they centred on party leadership, on which the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate. He said anything done outside jurisdiction amounted to a nullity.

The court voided the judgement of the Federal High Court delivered on October 8, 2024 on the grounds that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit.

Usman had vehemently faulted the decision and challenged it at the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending at the apex court, Abure filed a cross-appeal.

Supreme Court Judgment

But in its judgment penultimate Friday, the Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the Court of Appeal and held that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case, being an issue of internal affairs of the party.

The court, which resolved three issues submitted for determination in favour of the appellant, held that both the trial court and the Appeal Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of this first respondent.

Specifically referring to Abure, the apex court warned political parties to respect their constitutions and internal processes, urging party officers whose tenures had expired to vacate their positions.

“The dispute centred on whose name should be published by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the party’s candidate. The trial court favored Chief Ebiseni, who emerged after a fresh election on July 18, 2024, following Dr. Ayodele’s alleged voluntary withdrawal. The court below’s judgment favored Dr. Ayodele, having found that he did not withdraw from the contest.

“There was no issue in that appeal regarding the leadership dispute within the Labour Party specifically presented for the court’s determination.

“In this case, the court below, after recognizing that the 1st respondent’s main relief was relief number five (5), based on the leadership of the 1st respondent and thus not justiciable, strayed beyond its jurisdiction into the realm where even the angels dread to tread to prounce Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the 1st respondent.

“The of law applicable here is as expressed in the Latin maxim: Nihil nonexpetant aedificare store menaing that ‘one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. The 1st respondent’s suit at the trail court had not legs to stand in the circunstances and deserves to be struck out.”

“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 ancillary claim will inenvitably involve a discussion of the main claim, as in this.”

The three issues submitted for determination are resolved in favour of the appellants.

“In summary, both the trial court and the court below lacked jurisdiction to entertain the 1st respondent’s suit, whose main relief, as observed, was relief number five (5), treated as an appendage. As a result, the decisions of both the trial court and the court below, which recognised Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the 1st respondent, are set aside, and Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1271/2024 is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

“In the same vein, the 1st respondent’s cross-appeal in Appeal No. SC/CV/564/2025, stemming from the same judgment of the court below, is hereby dismissed.

“Before I am done, may I admonish 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 internal rifts which always find their way to court would be reduced. If the constitution of a political has prescribed duration for tenure of office of an officer, such officer should be humble enough to at the expiration of the tenure.

“In the final analysis, I appeal is meritorious and is hereby allowed,” Justice Okoro held.

Not a few wondered if Abure understood the judgment before thinking that he was not sacked by the court. 

“I really don’t know what Abure is contesting in the judgement. Why did he think that the Supreme Court did not sack him? The judgement is so clear. If a court says your tenure has expired or expressly declares that the decisions of both the trial court and the Appeal Court recognising Abure as the National Chairman of the party were set aside, what else does he want to hear?”, asked an analyst who did not want his name mentioned.