Nenadi Usman and Julius Abure
The Federal High Court judgment removing Julius Abure as National Chairman of the Labour Party (LP) has done more than resolve an internal leadership dispute—it has redrawn the balance of power within the party and reinforced the judiciary’s role in enforcing internal party democracy.
By ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise the Senator Nenadi Usman-led Caretaker Committee, the court effectively closed a chapter of prolonged uncertainty that had weakened the opposition party’s cohesion since the 2023 general elections.
Justice Peter Lifu’s ruling leaned heavily on the Supreme Court’s April 4, 2025 decision, underscoring a growing judicial trend: party leadership disputes may be internal, but once they intersect with statutory bodies like INEC, they become justiciable.
In rejecting Abure’s argument that the matter was a non-justiciable internal affair, the court sent a clear signal that political parties cannot shield leadership irregularities behind internal mechanisms when tenure limits, constitutional compliance and electoral regulation are in question.
The ruling also places INEC at the centre of renewed scrutiny. By directing the electoral body to “forthwith” recognise the caretaker committee, the court implicitly faulted the commission’s earlier posture, raising questions about how swiftly and consistently INEC responds to judicial and party resolutions in leadership disputes.
Within the Labour Party, the decision strengthens the authority of the National Executive Committee (NEC), whose move to sack Abure and install a 29-member caretaker committee was validated by the court as both lawful and necessary. It also affirms the role of expanded stakeholder consultations—such as the Umuahia meeting chaired by Peter Obi—in resolving internal crises.
Politically, the judgment offers the LP a narrow but critical opportunity to stabilise ahead of future elections. With legal clarity restored, attention is expected to shift from factional battles to rebuilding party structures, reconciling aggrieved blocs and preparing for a national convention.
For Abure, the ruling marks a judicial full stop on his leadership claim, after months of legal resistance to party decisions that had already stripped him of political legitimacy internally.
More broadly, the case reinforces a wider lesson in Nigeria’s party politics: leadership legitimacy no longer rests solely on control of party machinery, but on compliance with tenure rules, court judgments and transparent internal processes.
As opposition parties struggle to remain viable and credible, the Labour Party’s experience may serve as a cautionary tale—and a potential template—for resolving leadership crises through institutional rather than personal power.