Callistus Okafor, a prominent member of the Labour Party, has publicly stated that he should be the national chairman of the party rather than Julius Abure. Okafor, who was the Deputy National Chairman at the time Abure assumed the role of national chairman, believes that Abure’s appointment was not in line with the party’s constitution.
According to Okafor, the process that led to Abure’s elevation was flawed and did not adhere to the established rules of the party.
In a recent interview, Okafor expressed his concerns about the current state of the Labour Party, attributing its problems to a faulty foundation laid during the leadership transition. He elaborated, “When you start with a mistake, the entire structure built on that mistake will be flawed. The issues we are facing began when an acting national secretary was made the substantive national chairman during a National Executive Council meeting in Edo. This decision was not in accordance with the party’s constitution.”
Okafor explained that according to the Labour Party’s rules, the deputy chairman should take over if the chairman is absent. The constitution also specifies that if a deputy chairman is not available, a national vice chairman from one of the political zones should step in. Okafor criticized the process that led to Abure’s appointment, saying it did not follow these constitutional guidelines.
He highlighted that during the Edo meeting, there was an acting national secretary, but also a substantive national vice chairman who was recognized by the constitution. Okafor argued that the presence of this vice-chairman should have prevented Abure from becoming the national chairman in an unconstitutional manner. He believes that the constitution’s provisions were ignored, leading to the current leadership crisis within the party.
In addition to questioning Abure’s appointment, Okafor accused him of leading the party with a majority of appointed officials rather than those elected according to party rules. He criticized the recent appointment of Nenadi Usman as caretaker chairman, arguing that such decisions should be made in compliance with the party’s constitution. According to Okafor, the Labour Party should not operate like a local town hall where leaders can appoint individuals at will, but rather adhere strictly to its constitutional guidelines.
Okafor also referenced a 2018 court decision delivered by Judge Kolawole, which he claims has not been overturned. He argued that this consent judgment remains valid and has not been addressed by the current party leadership. “As long as this judgment is still in place and has not been set aside, it is incorrect to claim that the tenure of the current officials has expired,” Okafor said.
He emphasized that the judgment, issued while he was the deputy national chairman and Abure was the acting national secretary, should be respected in resolving the current leadership disputes within the party.
Okafor’s statements underscore a growing debate within the Labour Party regarding the legitimacy of its current leadership and adherence to its constitutional procedures.
