In a landmark judgment delivered on April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria nullified the recognition of Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the Labour Party (LP), thereby altering the trajectory of the party’s leadership dynamics.

Advertisements

This ruling has ignited a new phase in the internal crisis rocking the Labour Party, triggering a cascade of reactions from various stakeholders—including LP presidential candidate Mr. Peter Obi, Senator Nenadi Usman of the LP Caretaker Committee, and the factional LP spokesperson Obiora Ifoh.

Advertisements

The five-member panel of the Supreme Court emphatically ruled that the Court of Appeal in Abuja lacked jurisdiction in the earlier decision that had upheld Abure’s leadership.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the controversial Court of Appeal verdict and further invalidated the convention held in Anambra State that had ratified Abure’s re-election as the party’s national chairman.

This judgment has caused ripples within the Labour Party, with different factions interpreting and reacting to the verdict in contradictory ways. In this comprehensive blogpost, we will unpack the Supreme Court’s decision, examine the various reactions from party heavyweights, and consider the broader implications for the future of the Labour Party in Nigeria’s political landscape.

Abure’s Supreme Court Sack: A Game-Changer

Delivered on Friday, April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court’s ruling marked a critical intervention in the protracted leadership tussle within the Labour Party. The apex court unanimously held that the Court of Appeal had no legal authority to interfere in internal party leadership matters, especially when the party constitution provides mechanisms for resolving such issues.

Key Points from the Judgment:

Jurisdiction Error by Court of Appeal: The Supreme Court declared that the appellate court lacked the jurisdiction to affirm Abure’s chairmanship, thereby rendering its decision null and void.

Expired Tenure of Abure: The court also observed that Abure’s tenure had expired before the matter came up for adjudication, hence he had no valid mandate to remain in office.

Anambra Convention Dismissed: The Supreme Court invalidated the convention held in Anambra State, where Abure’s re-election was purportedly ratified, describing it as a product of internal mismanagement.

The ruling, therefore, stripped Abure of any legal authority to function as the national chairman of the Labour Party, sending the party leadership into disarray.

Peter Obi’s Calm Reaction: “I Still Have Faith in the Courts”

Reacting to Abure’s Supreme Court sack, Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s presidential flagbearer in the 2023 general elections, reacted with remarkable calm and statesmanship. Speaking through Dr. Yunusa Tanko, the spokesperson of the Obidient Movement, Obi reaffirmed his unwavering confidence in the Nigerian judicial system.

“No matter how judgments turn out, we still believe in the courts of our land. What matters now is peace, unity, and the progress of the Labour Party as we prepare for future national responsibilities,” Obi stated.

Rather than dwell on the legal technicalities or align with any of the warring factions, Peter Obi once again projected himself as a unifying figure, calling on all members of the Labour Party to focus on reforms, healing, and collective progress.

His neutral yet firm stance has been hailed by political observers who view him as the glue holding the fragile party together in turbulent times.

Nenadi Usman Welcomes the Verdict: “Victory for Democracy”

Reacting to Abure’s Supreme Court Sack, Senator Nenadi Usman, who leads the Labour Party Caretaker Committee, was more celebratory in her reaction. She applauded the April 4 judgment as a major victory for justice, democracy, and party accountability.

In a press statement released shortly after the ruling, she declared:

“This is a landmark victory for the rule of law. It signals the end of impunity and abuse of internal party processes. The Labour Party now has a unique opportunity to rebuild on the foundations of transparency and inclusivity.”

Usman also revealed that the Caretaker Committee will, in the coming days, announce a new timeline for the party’s national convention—one that will be supervised by INEC and open to all bona fide delegates.

Political insiders believe her faction is now poised to take full control of the party’s machinery, organize fresh elections, and restore internal order following months of tension and division.

Abure’s Supreme Court Sack: Obiora Ifoh Counters: “Abure Still in Charge”

In an unexpected move, Obiora Ifoh, the factional National Publicity Secretary of the Labour Party and an ally of Julius Abure, disputed the interpretation that Abure was sacked by the Supreme Court.

Addressing journalists during a press briefing in Abuja, Ifoh insisted:

“The Supreme Court judgment did not sack the Labour Party National Chairman, Julius Abure. Rather, it rightly upheld the precedence of lower court decisions that recognize the Labour Party’s internal authority to appoint its leaders.”

He further claimed that the Supreme Court respected the autonomy of the Labour Party and reaffirmed the right of party structures to determine leadership.

This statement has generated considerable confusion, with many questioning whether Ifoh was trying to spin the judgment to retain political influence. Legal analysts, however, maintain that the Supreme Court’s ruling clearly invalidated the process that installed Abure, thereby ending his legitimacy as chairman.

Abure’s Supreme Court Sack: Silence and Absence Raises Eyebrows

While his allies are busy defending his leadership, Barrister Julius Abure himself has remained silent, reportedly mourning the death of his father-in-law. His absence at the press briefing and lack of personal statement have left party members and political observers speculating about his next move.

Is Abure planning to appeal or re-strategize for a comeback through internal negotiations? Or is this the end of the road for his leadership ambitions? Time will tell.

Peter Obi Mandate Group Reacts: “The Game Is Over,” Says Rev. Udochukwu

Adding his voice to the wave of reactions trailing the April 4, 2025 Supreme Court ruling, Rev. Innocent Chukwudi Udochukwu, the National Coordinator of the Peter Obi Mandate Group (POMAG), delivered a strong-worded message to Barrister Julius Abure and his loyalists. Speaking during a press interaction in Abuja, Rev. Udochukwu applauded the court’s verdict, describing it as the final nail in the coffin of illegitimacy.

He said:

“This landmark ruling by the Supreme Court clearly signals that the game is over for Julius Abure and his motley supporters. It’s time they allowed peace, order, and sanity to return to the Labour Party. We must refocus on playing our role as a vibrant opposition and begin preparing in earnest for the 2027 general elections.”

Rev. Udochukwu also called on all stakeholders within the Labour Party, especially the Obidient movement, to rise above petty factionalism and embrace the task of nation-building. He stressed that the party must now close ranks, rebuild public trust, and position itself as a credible and people-oriented alternative to the ruling class.

“The Peter Obi Mandate Group stands firmly with justice, due process, and internal party democracy. We believe that with this ruling, God has given Labour Party another chance to rebuild properly and move forward with a clear sense of mission,” he added.

Rev. Udochukwu’s remarks further underscore the growing pressure on Abure’s faction to accept the legal reality and withdraw from the party’s affairs, thereby creating room for reconciliation and institutional reform.

Legal Experts Clarify: “Supreme Court Verdict is Final”

Several constitutional lawyers have weighed in to clear the air regarding the Supreme Court ruling. According to Barrister Nkechi Okezie, a legal analyst based in Lagos:

“The Supreme Court is the final arbiter. Its decisions are not subject to further appeal. The ruling invalidated both the Court of Appeal judgment and Abure’s tenure, so there is no ambiguity. The Labour Party must now chart a new path.”

Okezie also noted that while internal party mechanisms can still appoint or elect leaders, any process going forward must adhere strictly to the party’s constitution and INEC guidelines.

Implications for the Labour Party’s Future

The April 4 judgment has far-reaching consequences for the Labour Party, especially as the country looks ahead to the 2027 general elections. Here are some key takeaways:

1. A Leadership Vacuum

With Abure’s supreme court sack he is legally out of the picture, and the Caretaker Committee gaining recognition, the Labour Party must now urgently fill leadership gaps to stabilize the party.

2. Intensified Internal Power Struggles

The conflicting interpretations of the judgment indicate that the internal leadership crisis is far from over. More legal battles or factional clashes may be on the horizon if reconciliation efforts fail.

3. Peter Obi’s Mediatory Role

As the party’s most influential figure, Obi may be compelled to step in as a mediator, leveraging his moral authority to unite both camps and prevent further damage.

4. Public Trust and Electoral Credibility

The Labour Party’s credibility as a viable alternative to the dominant APC and PDP is at stake. Only transparency, reform, and genuine unity can restore public trust ahead of the next election cycle.

The Way Forward: Unity, Rebuilding, and Reform

If the Labour Party is to survive and thrive, this is a crucial moment of decision. With court-imposed restructuring now inevitable, the party must focus on:

Organizing a Transparent National Convention

Initiating Reconciliation Talks Between Factions

Re-Engaging the Obidient Movement at Grassroots Level

Establishing Legal and Structural Reforms

Clarifying Communication Channels and Party Statements

The Labour Party must also leverage this moment to refine its vision, policies, and strategy to position itself not just as a third force, but as a governing alternative come 2027.

Conclusion: A Turning Point in Nigeria’s Political History

The April 4, 2025 Supreme Court judgment is not just about Julius Abure. It is about party discipline, the sanctity of internal processes, and the role of the judiciary in upholding democracy.

Reactions from Peter Obi, Senator Nenadi Usman, and Obiora Ifoh reflect the fractures within the Labour Party, but also highlight the urgency for healing, rebuilding, and accountability. Whether the party rises from this stronger or splinters further will depend on the choices its leaders make in the days and weeks ahead.

As the nation watches, one thing is clear: the battle for the soul of the Labour Party is far from over—but the future is still in its hands.

Advertisements

A three-term former member of the House of Representatives, Hon. Teejay Yusuf, has faulted the Nigerian Senate’s handling of the ongoing feud between Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, describing it as a case of “progressing in error.”

Advertisements

Yusuf, who represented Kabba-Bunu/Ijumu Federal Constituency from 2011 to 2023, made his position known in a personally signed statement on Saturday. The former lawmaker, popularly known as Teejay, offered a critical analysis of the situation and proposed a conciliatory path forward.

Advertisements

“As a former federal lawmaker, who had the privilege of representing my constituency, and Nigeria for twelve years in the House of Representatives, I feel disappointed at the way, and manner the disagreement between the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio; and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is being managed.

He expressed dismay over the lack of tact and wisdom in resolving what he termed a “needless matter, he stated.”

“Initially, one had thought that the Senate, with experienced lawmakers in the leadership, and membership would apply more wisdom, tact, and restraint in handling the issues. But alas, the reverse is the case! Fact is, the Senate seems to be progressing in error, on a needless matter that should not degenerate into a full-blown crisis as has been witnessed, if the leadership had exhibited genuinity, sincerity, transparency, fairness, and true comradeship ab initio, he said”.

Yusuf questioned the approach adopted by the Senate leadership, suggesting that a more rational and inclusive process could have prevented the escalation.

In his words, “Perhaps it is necessary to ask; why go to war when proper reasoning would have saved the situation? Perhaps one should reiterate that the Senate leadership should know that might, as being displayed is not necessarily strength. Indeed, the relocation of seating arrangement, which was the initial matter should not have been allowed to snowball into other bigger issues if handled with care, fairness, and understanding.”

He pointed out several concerning developments, including a hot mic incident involving Akpabio, and the perceived haste in the Senate Committee’s investigation.
“Somehow, as events unfold it appears there is more to the matter. First, Akpabio, not realizing the microphone was on, allegedly gave a directive for the suspension of Natasha, while discussions were still on-going. Two, it took public outcry before attending to the Petition by Natasha’s constituents. Three, the swiftness, and hurried nature in which the Senate’s Committee on Ethics, Code of Conduct, and Public Petition completed its assignment, and submitted the report gave serious concerns. Four, the number of weighty recommendations, and severity gives the impression that the Committee may be ‘dancing to the rhythms of some drummers.’ Five, reports of alleged manipulation of the Committee’s attendance list were not taken with seriousness, and may have been consigned to history.”

Yusuf emphasized that parliamentary disputes are not uncommon and should not spiral into punitive actions.
“It should be reiterated that Parliament, all over the world, is naturally a place of contestation. That Akpoti-Uduaghan complained about the seating arrangement is not out of the ordinary. Such would have been resolved peacefully and amicably, without recourse to brickbats, and emotional outbursts by all parties.
In any case, similar (and possibly worse) incidents had happened in Nigeria’s Legislature which did not lead to what we are witnessing.”

He cited historical precedents of legislative disagreements that were resolved without suspensions.

“Recall Akpabio’s disagreement with Senator Saraki (then Senate President) over seating arrangement; Saraki and Senator David Mark (then Senate President) over some issues; Femi Gbajabiamila (as Opposition Leader); Rep. Chinda Kingsley, Rima Shawulu, and my humble self with Gbajabiamila (as Speaker). In all of these situations, despite fierce protestations, and arguments they were resolved amicably; it did not lead to the suspension of any member or senator. That is the beauty, and significance of the Legislature.”
He urged the Senate leadership to be more inclusive and respectful of dissenting voices.

“It is imperative to counsel Akpabio, and the leadership of Nigeria’s Senate that they should learn to accommodate dissenting voices as much as practicable and possible. Senators who are new, and others should be allowed to ventilate their opinions, and make contributions to debates; even when the leadership have different positions. That is what makes the Legislature vibrant and dynamic.”

Yusuf praised Akpoti-Uduaghan for standing her ground and advised her to stay focused on her legislative duties.
“Undoubtedly, with the voices of Akpoti-Uduaghan, and similar others making valuable contributions to national issues, at this time will bring positives to the Senate. Also, the Senate can leverage the popularity of Akpoti-Uduaghan (and others) to generate positive public perception about the Legislature, and deepen Nigeria’s democracy.

While I congratulate Akpoti-Uduaghan for being dogged, steadfast, and refusing to be cowed in the midst of harassment and intimidation, I wish to appeal that she should continue to stay committed towards impacting positively on the good people of Kogi Central Senatorial District who have consistently invested their total support for her not minding the crude theatrics and propaganda by few people.”

He condemned the alleged involvement of the Kogi State government in the feud and the recall efforts.

“I strongly advise the Kogi state government not to internalize the crisis, which has external origin. That the government is allegedly involved in the matter is very unfortunate.Also, reports that the government was behind the recall of Akpoti-Uduaghan is outrightly condemnable, preposterous and cowardly.
I appeal to those behind the recall to backtrack, and stop forthwith by not overheating the political system in Kogi state. Elections are over, though of different political parties, Akpoti-Uduaghan is representing the state at the National Assembly.”

He called for a peaceful resolution and intervention by well-meaning Nigerians.

“The best Kogi state government can do is to seek ways towards resolving the crisis, and not taking sides, and embarking on actions that will end in failures. Finally, as an advocate of peace, unity, and development, I believe that the needless crisis between Akpabio and Akpoti-Uduaghan can still be resolved. Fact is, the image of the Senate has been bruised, and battered. Something immediate, and timely needs to be done. Going forward, I call on credible, and patriotic Nigerians, in or out of government to step up, and intervene on the lingering feud in the overall interest of the country”, he added.

Advertisements

Disturbed by the alleged disdain for the Social Democratic Party, SDP leadership structure by the new entrants, the forum of State Chairmen of SDP has*cautioned its leadership structure must be recognized, respected and not tampered with.

Advertisements

The Forum said, it has confidence the SDP leadership structure, warning some high profile politicians defecting to the party not to move against or alter its core identity.

Advertisements

This caution was contained in a communiqué issued on Thursday at the Green Minds Hotel Conference Centre in Abuja, declaring full support for the SDP’s National Chairman, Alhaji Shehu Musa Gabam, and National Secretary, Dr. Olu Agunloye, adding their effort in repositioning the party was well noted and worth applauding.

Recently the SDP has swollen up with defectors who are high profile politicians, even as the State Chairmen noted that new members must be integrated through proper party channels.

“New members are welcome, but they cannot admit or register themselves,” the communiqué stated, reinforcing that state leadership remains the gateway for party membership.

The forum also warned against any hasty changes to the party’s name, logo, or constitution, insisting that such decisions must undergo thorough deliberation by the National Executive Council (NEC).

Additionally, they rejected any attempts to dissolve democratically elected structures to accommodate new entrants, emphasizing that elected officials must serve their full terms.

Reaffirming SDP’s democratic ethos, the chairmen pledged to resist any moves that could subordinate the party to personal or sectional ambitions.

“The SDP belongs to all Nigerians. It must not be hijacked by any individual or interest group,” they declared.

With elections on the horizon and an influx of political heavyweights into the party, the SDP leadership appears set on preserving its identity while expanding its influence. Whether these internal guidelines will prevent friction or spark further debates remains to be seen.

Advertisements