Supreme Court Won’t Pick Sides: Labour Party Must Settle Its House – MICHAEL ONI

I took time to go through the certified true copy of the supreme court judgement that is deepening the labour party leadership crisis.

The Supreme Court judgment in SC/CV/56/2025 centers on a dispute within the Labour Party over party leadership and its implications on participation in the 2024 Ondo State Governorship Election.

Here’s a simplified interpretation:

Background

The Labour Party (LP), through its National Chairman (Julius Abure) and IT staff, was excluded by INEC from a refresher training and access to its portal for uploading party agents ahead of the Ondo election.

The LP filed a lawsuit asking the court to:

1. Declare that it should have been included.
2. Compel INEC to conduct the training for it.
3. Recognize Julius Abure as its National Chairman.

Lower Court Rulings

• The Federal High Court ruled in favour of the LP, granting all five reliefs, including recognizing Julius Abure as National Chairman.
• The Court of Appeal, however, ruled the court had no jurisdiction (because the suit was a leadership tussle—an internal party matter), and it struck out the case. But strangely, it also went on to affirm Abure as National Chairman.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the suit was not justiciable —meaning courts have no business meddling in internal leadership disputes of political parties.

However, it criticized both lower courts for going beyond their powers to recognize Abure.

Final Outcome

• The Supreme Court struck out the entire case for lack of jurisdiction.
• The recognition of Julius Abure as LP National Chairman was nullified.
• The Labour Party’s appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.
• The court warned political parties to respect their internal rules and leadership structures to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Key Takeaways

• Leadership disputes within parties are not matters for courts, unless they involve constitutional breaches or statutory violations.
• Courts cannot anoint party leaders.
• INEC was not wrong in its actions if it was based on the leadership crisis.
• The Labour Party lost the case entirely.

Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, no court including the Supreme Court has declared or affirmed ANYONE as the legitimate leader of the Labour Party.

The court made it clear that:

Leadership disputes in political parties are internal affairs.

Courts do not have jurisdiction to decide who leads a party unless there’s a clear breach of the party’s constitution or relevant laws.

Therefore, Julius Abure was not affirmed as the National Chairman, and the lower courts were wrong to make such pronouncements.

So, who is the leader of the Labour Party?

Legally, the Supreme Court has not endorsed anyone.
Practically, it’s up to the Labour Party’s internal processes — like its constitution, congresses, or recognized organs — to determine who holds that position.

If there’s a leadership crisis, it must be resolved internally, not by the courts.

Micheal Oni is a news and current affairs journalist