NLC, Abure-Led NWC Rejects New LP Faction
NLC, Abure-Led NWC Rejects New LP Faction
Opposition is intensifying over Callistus Okafor’s appointment as the new factional National Chairman of the Labour Party. In recent interviews, Umar Farouk, the party’s National Secretary, and Prof. Theophilus Ndubuaku, Deputy President of the Nigeria Labour Congress Political Commission, both rejected Okafor’s claim to leadership…..CONTINUE READING
While the spotlight has been on the conflict between the Julius Abure-led National Working Committee and the 29-member caretaker committee led by former minister Nenadi Usman, Okafor seized this moment to announce his leadership. Okafor, a former deputy national chairman of the LP, declared at a press conference in Abuja that he was the rightful leader of the party.
He justified his takeover by citing a 2018 consent judgment from the Federal High Court, which he claimed was ignored. This judgment was issued during a previous leadership dispute involving the late LP national chairman Abdulkadir Salam and a faction led by Salisu Mohammed, who also claimed to be the national caretaker chairman at that time. Okafor contended that the Abure-led NWC’s non-compliance with the court order allowed them to build on a flawed structure.
Farouk dismissed Okafor’s claims, accusing him of exploiting the current internal crisis. Farouk also blamed Abia State Governor Alex Otti for exacerbating the party’s internal divisions. He commented, “If Governor Otti can unilaterally form a caretaker committee, then it’s no surprise that others like Okafor can claim leadership. The real determination of leadership will come from the courts, while Okafor’s claims remain speculative.”
The NLC camp echoed this sentiment, with Prof. Ndubuaku dismissing Okafor’s claim as irrelevant. He pointed out that the party’s real leaders are known and include figures like Peter Obi and Governor Otti, along with elected officials and stakeholders. Ndubuaku suggested that Okafor’s move was merely an attempt to gain attention and relevance.
Comments
0 comments