Labour Party (LP) moves to douse controversy, releases verbatim report of Supreme Court’s ruling on party’s leadership crisis

In an effort to douse the creeping controversy over the correct interpretation of the ruling, The Labour Party (LP) has released a verbatim report of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the appeal filed by the Senator Nenadi Usman’s-led National Caretaker Committee against the ruling of the Appeal Court on the party’s lingering national leadership crisis.

The report released by the LP is as follows:

“A panel of five Justices of the Supreme Court—Honourable Justices John Inyang Okoro, Helen Morenikeji,  Ogu C. C. Onwumiju, Tijjani Abubakar, Haruna Simon Tsammani, and Mohammed Baba Idris—sat to hear the appeal. The lead judgment was delivered by Honourable Justice John Inyang Okoro, JSC, and read on his behalf.

“The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/2017/2024, which had earlier affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1271/2024, commenced by the first respondent. The trial court had struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

“The facts that led to this appeal were comprehensively addressed in the body of the judgment.

“After reviewing the arguments of counsel, the Supreme Court unanimously held as follows:

“The lower court, having found that Relief No. 5 sought by the first respondent—which was predicated on the leadership tussle within the first respondent—was non-justiciable, erred by proceeding further into a matter beyond its jurisdiction, even going so far as to pronounce Barrister Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the first respondent.

“Their Lordships held that the lower court was wrong to have done so. As expressed in the legal maxim: “You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand.” Thus, the trial court’s decision had no legal foundation and deserved to be struck out.

“In reiterating the tripod of the law, the Court emphasized that where a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the main claim in an action, it equally lacks jurisdiction to entertain any auxiliary or ancillary claims—especially when such auxiliary claims are directly tied to the substantive claim, as was the case here (see: Government of Gongola State).

“Accordingly, the three issues submitted for determination were jointly resolved in favour of the appellants.

“In summary:

“Both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by the first respondent.

“The relief in question—Relief No. 5—appeared to have been inserted as an appendage and lacked legal merit.

“Consequently, the decisions of both courts recognizing Barrister Julius Abure as National Chairman of the first respondent are hereby set aside.

“The suit, FHC/ABJ/CS/1271/2024, is accordingly struck out for want of jurisdiction.

“Similarly, the first respondent’s cross-appeal in Appeal No. SC/CV/56A/2025, being a derivative of the same judgment of the lower court, is hereby dismissed.”

The Labour Party quoted the Supreme Court as admonishing political parties and their members to respect and adhere to their constitutions, rules, regulations, and guidelines in the selection of their officers and candidates, as doing so would reduce the incessant interference of internal party matters in the courts.

“Where a party’s constitution provides for a tenure, political officers should honourably step down at its expiration,” the Supreme Court Justices were also quoted as holding.

“Final Analysis: The appeal is found to be meritorious and is accordingly allowed. Each party shall bear its own costs,” the Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled.