Follow Us on Google
By Demola Abimboye
The soul of a political party does not reside in the sleek briefcases of its high-flying flag bearers; neither does it belong to the latecomer elites who naturally gravitate towards a platform only after it has crept into national prominence. It belongs, intrinsically and undeniably, to the ordinary people — the workers, the youths, and the market women — who built the Labour Party, LP, from a quiet ideological corner into a roaring, formidable third force in Nigeria’s democratic journey so far.
Today, this organic mass movement stands at a historic crossroads, paused in anxious anticipation, refusing to yield to despair, and waiting resolutely for the Supreme Court to speak. Across the length and breadth of Nigeria, the millions of citizens who invested their sweat, tears, and hope into this platform remain completely undecided on their future steps, anchoring their ultimate hope on the apex court to preserve the structural sanctity of their vehicle. They do not look upon the institutional stakeholders who came later with bitterness; rather, they simply look upward to the grand temple of justice to ensure that the foundational architecture of their political home is not inadvertently dismantled by administrative interventions.
At the heart of the current crisis is a profound question of justice and fairness that transcends the restrictive walls of the lower courts. While the lower judicial chambers focused heavily on punitive technicalities and procedural rigidities; interpreting the intense struggle for the party’s institutional survival as mere re-litigation — they inadvertently overlooked a broader, more significant precedent. By employing the extraordinary doctrine of necessity to validate external caretaker committees, the lower courts stepped dangerously close to the judicial management of leadership, fracturing the sacred principle that a party’s internal affairs belong strictly to its constitutionally established mechanisms. The Nnewi national convention, regardless of the administrative squabbles surrounding its notification processes, represents an expression of constitutional continuity that cannot be easily set aside by an assembly of stakeholders, no matter how well-meaning their intentions to salvage the party might be. The ordinary people are watching this legal tug-of-war, fully aware that if the Supreme Court does not examine the fresh grounds of this appeal, a populist movement risks losing its organic link to the common man, transforming instead into a top-down bureaucratic apparatus where the grassroots members are merely spectators.
Yet, there is a deep, abiding reason why the grassroots have not lost faith, and it lies in the historic character and intellectual depth of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
The apex court has never been a mere rubber stamp of mechanical, rigid rules; it is, and has always been recognised as a reliable court of law and a profound court of policy. By considering the new grounds of the Abure-led LP appeal, the apex court has a timely opportunity to reinforce the internal sanctuary of party democracy and declare that the internal administrative decisions of a political association are best handled by its internal legal structures rather than external interventions.
It has consistently maintained a hands-off policy regarding the internal governance of political associations, recognising that to do otherwise would undermine the very essence of multi-party democracy. In the landmark case of Onuoha v. Okafor, the Supreme Court laid down the immutable principle that the domestic affairs of a political party are non-justiciable questions over which courts should not lightly assume control. This position was robustly reinforced in Dalhatu v. Turaki, where the court clarified that the judiciary must resist the temptation to micro-manage political entities as long as they operate within the general framework of their party regulations.
More recently, the apex court reaffirmed this enduring legal philosophy in its unanimous decision regarding the national secretary dispute of the People’s Democratic Party, PDP. It eloquently held that political parties possess the inherent autonomy to manage their internal affairs without undue interference from external bodies, explicitly warning that the judiciary’s role is not to referee administrative disputes or impose leadership structures, but to ensure adherence to due process, equity, and fairness.
It is this rich heritage of judicial restraint and wisdom that the ordinary builders of the LP now invoke, asking the panel that would be constituted under the leadership of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Hon. Justice Kudirat Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun GCON, to apply these same protective doctrines to their beloved platform.
The request to return to status quo ante-bellum while examining the fresh grounds of appeal is not an act of defiance against the lower courts, but an appeal to the higher policy function of the apex court. The lower courts, in their rigid focus on the timeline of Abure’s tenure, created a vacuum that was quickly filled by an ad-hoc caretaker committee. While the elites who convened the Umuahia meeting may have acted out of a genuine desire to see the party organised for future elections, the legal mechanism used, i.e. the doctrine of necessity, remains an extraordinary tool meant for constitutional breakdowns, not regular administrative disagreements. If every intra-party leadership dispute can be bypassed by creating parallel caretaker structures under judicial cover, the stability of the entire Nigerian political system faces a quiet crisis.
The Supreme Court understands that its rulings set the standard for all subordinate authorities. By granting an order to return to the status quo ante bellum, the court would not be declaring a final winner; instead, it would be freezing the situation to prevent an irreversible change on the ground before the substantial constitutional questions can be thoroughly answered. This approach protects the institutional integrity of the party and gives the ordinary members a sense of security, knowing that their platform cannot be structurally altered overnight while their appeals are still pending before the highest court in the land.
Ultimately, this struggle is less about individual personalities but far more about the democratic rights of the common man. In a developing democracy like Nigeria, the court represents the last hope of the ordinary citizen who lacks the financial capital to compete with institutional power. When thousands of regular citizens pool their modest resources, organise grassroots campaigns, and build a political party from obscurity into a national phenomenon, they create a form of social capital that must be protected by law. They rely on the predictability of the legal system to guard their collective investment. If the legal rules can be subtly adjusted to validate external interventions over established internal party processes, the common man loses his incentive to participate in democratic state-building.
The current sense of uncertainty among the LP at the grassroots is a reflection of this profound anxiety. They are waiting because they believe in the rule of law; they remain undecided because they respect the judicial process and refuse to take matters into their own hands. Their patience is a profound vote of confidence in the Supreme Court’s historical legacy as an institution that listens to the quiet whispers of the populace just as clearly as it hears the loud arguments of prominent advocates.
As the legal teams prepare to present their arguments on these new grounds of appeal, the judicial task ahead is one of delicate balance — harmonizing the strict requirements of legal form with the expansive demands of substantial justice.
The ordinary people who built LP are not asking for a special favor; they are asking for the consistent application of the Supreme Court’s own established precedents on party supremacy and internal autonomy. They are asking that their party be allowed to resolve its administrative challenges through its own constitutional organs, free from judicially enforced caretaker interventions.
Ultimately, if the Supreme Court stands firmly on the side of the common man by returning the party to the status quo ante bellum, such a profound intervention will carry absolutely no negative consequences for the platform. Far from fracturing LP, it will serve as the ultimate healing balm, quickly uniting all factions around the shared objective of moving both the party and the common man in the direction of genuine participatory democracy. This approach guarantees a win-win resolution for both sides. Because the established structures remain intact, the party’s meticulous preparations and institutional readiness for upcoming elections will not be tampered with in any way. In doing so, the Supreme Court will not only be resolving a leadership dispute; it will be reassuring millions of ordinary Nigerians that their contributions to democracy are valued, that their political vehicles are secure, and that the temple of justice remains an unshakeable fortress for the common man.
• Abimboye writes from Lagos.
