 |
| Abure addresses reporters amid party leadership dispute |
Julius Abure says INEC still recognises him. The electoral body has taken a different view, saying his tenure is over and it will no longer treat him as Labour Party national chairman. That clash has thrown the party into fresh chaos just before a string of by-elections and local contests, and it could reshape who speaks for the party at election desks.
The short version is messy. INEC filed a counter affidavit that says Abure’s term expired in mid-2024, and the commission says it has adjusted its recognition to match a higher court ruling in April. That move, INEC says, removes Abure from the register of recognised party leaders.
Abure’s people push back hard. They call the INEC steps a smear campaign, insist a Nasarawa State court gave them an order to access the electoral portal, and say INEC is ignoring that order. Their spokespeople say press lines and motions are being twisted to fit the other side’s story. That claim, from Abure’s camp, is the public counter to INEC’s line.
A federal court development deepened the trouble. A Federal High Court in Abuja rejected Abure’s suit, and judges made findings that legal experts say align with the Supreme Court’s April ruling. The high court decision left Abure’s camp with fewer legal options on the main federal level. That judgment matters because INEC has said it acted based on the binding decisions at the nation’s higher courts.
Still, Abure’s faction points to a fresh Nasarawa order that asked INEC to give its people access to upload candidate names for local polls. That lower court order created a confusing overlap: another court told INEC to grant access, while INEC says its recognition rests on the Supreme Court and federal filings. That is the split in legal authority everyone is trying to sort out right now.
Why this matters beyond a row in party offices is plain and practical. By-elections and council votes are happening now, and INEC’s recognition lists determine whose candidates get on the ballot or the portal. If INEC stops recognising a faction, the candidates that faction names risk being rejected or delayed, which changes real votes on the ground. That is the immediate, practical harm party members keep talking about.
The timing makes leaders nervous. The Abure camp says it has filed and tried to get access for its nominated candidates, but party officials in the rival camp, led by Interim Chairman Nenadi Usman, cheered INEC’s move as a return to the rule of law and court orders. Each side paints the other as the spoiler, and ordinary voters are left wondering which names will appear when they go to vote.
A closer look at the legal trail helps explain why the race is tight and tangled. The Supreme Court’s April ruling addressed earlier disputes inside the party and narrowed the room for factions that tried to extend their terms. INEC says that ruling is binding and it must treat who it recognises consistently with that ruling. Abure’s team, in turn, points to state court wins and interlocutory orders that they say give them a lawful path to present candidates for specific polls. So both sides have legal paper to wave, but the higher court view tends to carry the most weight for the national registrar.
People close to the party say this is not only a legal fight but also a political tug. One faction lines up behind the 2023 presidential candidate and parts of the old national executive. The other faction says it is the rightful leadership with valid local orders. Each side hopes the police of procedure — the commission and the courts — will tilt the playing field for them in practice. Expect more filings, more brief statements, and more claims about who is acting in the party’s name.
For voters, the scene can look petty and technical, but the stakes are clear. A party divided at the top often sends mixed messages to local organizers and volunteers, which can hurt turnout and confuse supporters. It also hands talking points to rivals who will claim the party cannot be trusted to manage its affairs. That practical damage matters, because local seats and bye-elections decide how the party will position itself for bigger fights later.
What comes next is predictable and also uncertain. INEC says it has adjusted its recognition; that position will stand unless a higher or the same court orders otherwise, or unless INEC finds new legal grounds to change back. Abure’s team will likely take every legal route open at state and federal levels, and may push for more interlocutory relief to force the commission to accept their candidate uploads. Meanwhile, party unity will keep fraying as long as both camps see procedural advantage in fighting.
A few people tried to play peacemaker, urging the two sides to sit and sort out candidate lists for the common good. But good sense runs up hard against a hard calendar. Courts move at their own slow pace, political actors move faster, and the commission normally must act on the law it sees. That mismatch is why these fights often end in winners and losers on the ballot, not quiet compromises behind closed doors.
If you’re watching the Labour Party, watch three things next week. One, whether INEC publishes a new list that excludes Abure’s nominees for the immediate by-elections. Two, whether any court orders arrive that explicitly reverse the federal holdings. Three, whether local party structures accept the names INEC shows on the ballot or try to mobilise parallel lists. Those moves will show whether the battle ends in legal finality or messy politics.
A plain takeaway: this is a party fight with legal paper and real ballots at stake. It smells, at times, like internal turf war, and at other times like a legal argument about dates and registrations. Either way, the voter sees the result on the day they cast a ballot, and that is the real test of which side ends up running the show.
I’ll close with what the players themselves are saying publicly, without direct quotes. INEC says it acted in line with the higher court judgment and its filings. Abure’s faction says the commission is ignoring valid state court orders and is helping a rival faction. Interim leaders in the rival camp say the removal cleans the slate and respects earlier court rulings. Again, many of these claims hinge on which court’s order the commission chooses to follow first.
That’s the news now: a split between a national commission and a faction, contested court rulings, and votes due very soon. Expect more filings and more statements, and expect the by-election results to carry political weight beyond the single seats at stake. I’ll keep tracking the rulings and the commission’s publications, because those papers will decide which faction can put its names on the ballot.