Elected members behind our crisis, says Labour Party

• ‘INEC’s absence didn’t invalidate Abure, NWC’s re-election’

The Labour Party (LP) has accused elected members of sponsoring the internal crisis within the party.

National Legal Adviser Kehinde Edun stated this yesterday during a news conference at the party’s secretariat in Abuja

Edun however said the party can’t be intimidated or cowed by any external aggressor.

His statement comes three days after INEC announced that none of its officials attended or monitored proceedings at the disputed convention.

Abure has been at loggerheads with the NLC leadership over the legitimacy of his re-election. The party’s internal rift remains unresolved as the NLC and its stakeholders continue to distance themselves from the current NWC. The situation escalated further when INEC responded to a request by a lawyer for a Certified True Copy (CTC) of its report on the convention and the party’s constitution. INEC’s position has since led to a chain reaction, with the NLC insisting that it has been vindicated.

The NLC subsequently set up a National Transition Committee (LPNTC) headed by Comrade Abdulwahed Omar, a former President of the NLC. Omar, on June 25, threatened to flush out Abure from the party.

But Edun said the INEC letter was wrongly interpreted. According to him, the presence or absence of INEC officials does not affect the legitimacy of the national convention.

He also argued that NLC’s attempt at hijacking the party was illegal and unconstitutional, adding that sections 221 to 229 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria forbid the ownership of a political party by anybody or group.

The legal adviser also accused the NLC of flouting the law by applying the Congress funds towards political objectives.

According to him, sections 15(1) to 15(3) of the Trade Union Act prohibit the NLC from applying its funds towards any political objectives.

Edun said: “So where are they getting the money to cause all this trouble? Are they been paid by APC or are they flouting the law to apply the congress funds towards political objectives?

“In section 15(3)(a) political objective is said to include ‘the making of any contribution towards the funds of any political party’.”

He stated that there was no injunctive or coercive order against the Labour Party, adding that “The 2018 consent judgment and the 2022 terms of settlement have been complied with by us.

“If anyone is in breach, it is the NLC. As for the 2018 terms of settlement which was adopted as consent judgment, the court in its wisdom said ‘it shall operate to bind parties who signed it.’

“Though LP did not sign the terms of the settlement, we fully complied with it at the 2019 convention for the sake of peace. With regards to the 2022 agreement, the party fulfilled our own part of the bargain by appointing nominees of the NLC as Deputy National Chairman (Comrade Ladi Iliya) and National Vice Chairman (Alh Umaru Mohammed), and also nominee of TUC (Trade Union Congress), Dr. Ayo Olorunfemi as Deputy National Chairman.”

Edun also insisted that the absence of INEC officials at the party’s March 27 national convention in Nnewi, Anambra State, didn’t invalidate the election that returned its National Chairman, Julius Abure, and members of the National Working Committee (NWS) to office.

He said: “On the deliberate misinterpretation of INEC’s reply to an application by Messr Steve Adehi, SAN & Co, this letter is very clear and unambiguous and shouldn’t have been the subject of any argument. However, not finding anything to hold against us, they went to import what is not contained in the letter into it.

“The applicant (an agent of the NLC) requested for INEC’s CTC to monitor the report of the Labour Party convention 2024 and the constitution. Though the applicant and his principal were dishonest, mischievous, dubious, and manipulative, INEC’s response was accurate and unpretentious.

“How on earth could there be an INEC monitored report when we have made it clear that INEC did not attend, a position also confirmed by INEC and is in the public domain. The NLC and its cronies, including the applicant, knew INEC didn’t attend. Why then ask for tis report, and what is their business with it?

“In paragraph three of the INEC’s response, the commission expressed regret that it did not monitor the convention and could therefore not have an INEC-monitored report. Now, did the non-attendance of INEC invalidate the convention? The answer is capital NO and INEC never said so. The law did not make it mandatory for INEC to attend any party’s convention. INEC knew it was at liberty to attend or not. What the law requires is proper notice, the law did not say the failure of INEC to attend shall render the convention invalid. What then is the essence of the dishonest, dubious, and misconceived hue and cry by the NLC?”