Supreme court never sacked Barr Julius Abure – Barr. ENU KIKANWA TIMIPRE LINDA, Bayelsa LP Legal Adviser

The legal Adviser of the Labour Party (LP) in Bayelsa State, Barr. ENU KIKANWA Timipre Linda has dismissed as misplaced the claims that the recent Supreme Court ruling on the leadership dispute in the party sacked Barr. Julius Abure- as the National Chairman of the Party.

According to Barr. ENU KIKANWA Timipre Linda, the recent Supreme Court judgment on the Labour Party leadership is a significant development and the court’s decision affirms its stance on judicial precedents, emphasizing that internal party affairs are not within its jurisdiction.

According to her, “Let me give you a background exposition on the case. Ex-SENATOR ESTHER NENADI USMAN brought a petition challenging the tenure and leadership of the Labour Party. The petition, brought by the petitioner who is also the appellant, was based on the Appeal Court’s pronouncement of Barr Julius Abure as the national chairman of the Labour Party.”

” However, the matter was struck off, and Barr Julius Abure was never the petitioner. On the basis of the appeal, because the Appeal Court pronounced Barr Julius Abure as the national chairman in its judgment, they appealed, challenging the pronouncement of the Appeal Court.”

“What the Supreme Court did was allow the appeal on the ground that the lower court erred by assuming jurisdiction ab initio, because the matter before the court was the issue of leadership and nothing more. Based on that, the apex court dismissed the matter before it on the ground of it being strictly the internal affairs of the party.”

“It’s trite and has been laid down in several judicial precedents that the court has no business with the internal affairs of a political party. Note that a party is supreme over its own affairs. A party is like a club, a voluntary association, with its rules, regulations, guidelines, and constitution.”

“Members join the party on their own free will and, by joining, have freely given their consent to be bound by the rules, regulations, guidelines, and constitution of the party.These rules of the party must be obeyed by all members of the party, as the party’s decision is final over its own affairs.”

” Members of a party would do well to understand and appreciate the supremacy of a party’s decision over its domestic or internal affairs. The court would only interfere where the party has violated its own rules.”

“As stated earlier, the court has jurisdiction to intervene in the internal operations of a political party when the parties fail to adhere to their own constitutions or rules, as the case may be. The power of the court to intervene in the internal affairs of political parties when they violate their own rules was deployed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 377) 807 at 875-876, Paras. A-A (SC).”

“The Labour Party’s constitution outlines specific guidelines for choosing leadership, removing leaders, and determining tenure lengths. Leadership selection involves procedures for electing leaders, such as through a convention called by the national chairman.”

“Leadership removal also includes processes for removing leaders, which includes resignation, impeachment, and others, also the labour party constitution also specifies tenure lengths, the duration of leadership terms, including limits on consecutive terms.”

” Any members not satisfied also have an internal mechanism to access and register their displeasure not dash to court. So we will be waiting to hear their complaints if and when they humble themselves before the party’s internal mechanism.”

She also described as laughable the failed attempts by a faction of the party to constitute a caretaker committee, “It’s seriously laughable because, caretaker committee is alien to our labour party constitution and even if, note I said even if the need arises the National working committee knows what to do in line with the lay down guidelines of the labour party constitution.”

“Come to think of it, I truly do not understand the likes of Nemadi Usman, Aisha Yusuf and their cohorts, how can you come to a party yesterday and want to upton the entire party constitution without a fight? No na! It can’t work na! They need to come up with something more clever because their Actus rus spoke louder than words or better still totally submit to the leadership of the party.”

She however described as propaganda, the claims that Supreme Court sacked the leadership of the party, “Like you said, it’s propaganda, which should be checked to avoid polluting the minds of the public. Nevertheless, the public is expected to be careful about what they digest and verify information before consuming it.”