Pulse.ng : High Court validates Labour Party's Convention , substantiates Abure as National Chairman

By Perpetua Onuegbu

The FCT High Court has validated the Labour Party's March 26, 2024 Convention in Nnewi thereby substantiating Mr Julius Abure 's position as the party's National Chairman.
A statement signed by Mr Obiora Ifoh, National Publicity Secretary on Saturday in Abuja.

Ifoh said this was in line with the requirement of both the 2022 Electoral Act and Labour Party Constitution.

According to him, the judge that presided over the case, Justice J.K Omotosho said that how the Labour Party planned and executed its convention was entirely its internal affairs and as such were outside the jurisdiction of the Court.

Omotosho in his ruling on July 18, 2024 in a SUIT NO; FHC/ABJ/CS/397/2024 ' between Mr. Lawrence Erewele (Plaintiff) and Labour Party, Abure, INEC and others said that Labour Party observed the provisions of Sections 82(1), 82(3) and 82(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

Articles 7, 13(1), 13(1) (b) (ii), 13(1) (b) (viii) and 13 (1) () (ix) of the party constitution in holding its convention and that the resolutions passed were binding on Labour Party members.

The court also dismissed the issue of insufficient notice from the party to the INEC describing the Plaintiff as a meddlesome interloper who based his suit on spurious claims without any credible proof and who as neither the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) nor a representative of the Commission.

According to him, "Issues regarding delegates at a National Convention or how the convention is planned and executed are outside the jurisdiction of this Court being internal affairs of the - Labour Party. Consequently, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the issues therein are non-justiciable.

On not meeting the 21 days required notice to INEC to conduct the convention, Justice Omotosho said that said that Labour Party did not default having sent its notices which exceeded the 21 days notice required by section 82 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

He said, "It must be noted that the 21 days began to run from the date the first notice was sent and not when the last notice was sent.

"From the day, the 5th Defendant received the initial notice, it had become aware that the 1st Defendant wanted to hold its national convention and it was left for it to organise its officers to monitor the convention and make reports.

"The whole idea of the mandatory 21 days notice was for the 5th Defendant to have sufficient time to monitor the convention," Omotosho said.

The judge also said that the decision to attend a convention, Primary or meeting of a political party with or without notice is at the discretion of the INEC.
"It could decide to attend the convention even where the "notice is insufficient. This would not invalidate the meeting, Primary or convention.

"Clearly, the Plaintiff in this case has simply decided to meddle into what is not his business. The Plaintiff is not the 5th Defendant, neither is he a staff of the 5th Defendant to complain about the inadequacy of notice served on the 5th Defendant in the lead up to the National Convention of ist Defendant."

On the argument that Abure and a few of his executive members planned and executed the convention without the input of the National Executive Committee, contrary to the Constitution of the Labour Party, Justice Omotosho said that there was nothing on record to show that Abure and his working committee acted unilaterally in planning and executing the National Convention.

Rather they acted in concert with other members of the NWC and NEC to organize the Convention.

"‘In the light of the evidence before this Court, it is obvious to this Court that the Plaintiff based his suit on spurious claims without any credible proof. The Plaintiff cannot rely on bare ‘assertions or make speculations without any proof of same. Mere assertions without credible proof is insufficient and would not avail the Plaintiff.

“It is clear that his suit is borne out of malicious and paper-thin evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants. The fact that he did not hear about the planning for the National Convention to enable him to attend as a Delegate cannot invalidate the National Convention of the party.

"The Plaintiff as an aggrieved member of the party can resort to internal dispute resolution mechanisms under the party’s constitution to air his grievance since the party is a democracy.

"In final analysis, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over this suit being an internal affairs matter of a political party as well as lack of — locus standi on the part of the Plaintiff Where the Court assumes jurisdiction over the suit, the suit has no merit. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed."(NAN)