Okafor Claims Deputy National Chairman Role Entitles Him To Top Position Over Abure

Okafor Claims Deputy National Chairman Role Entitles Him To Top Position Over Abure

Okafor criticized the leadership structure within the Labour Party, stating that foundational issues have led to ongoing problems. He pointed out that a faulty decision made during a National Executive Council meeting in Edo, where an acting national secretary was elevated to the position of national chairman, was a significant issue…….CONTINUE READING 

“From the beginning, when the foundation was incorrectly set, the entire structure became flawed,” Okafor said. “How could an acting national secretary like Abure become the national chairman? This is not provided for in the Labour Party constitution.”

He explained that, according to party rules, the deputy national chairman should take over in the chairman’s absence. The constitution outlines a clear hierarchy, with two deputy national chairmen, one from the North and one from the South, who would assume leadership if the other is unavailable. Additionally, if both deputies are absent, the six national vice-chairmen from each political zone should step in.

Okafor criticized the appointment of Julius Abure, who was an acting national secretary, to a position that was not in line with the party’s constitution. He also accused Abure of leading the party with a majority of appointed rather than elected executives and faulted the appointment of Nenadi Usman as caretaker chairman, asserting that it violates party rules.

“In the current Abure-led executive, only three members are constitutionally elected; the rest are appointees,” Okafor said. “The Labour Party should not operate like a town hall meeting where people are appointed arbitrarily. We have a constitution that must be followed.”

He also mentioned a 2018 consent judgment delivered by Judge Kolawole, which remains valid until formally set aside. Okafor argued that the judgment affects the current leadership situation and that the tenure cannot be deemed expired while the judgment is still in effect. He concluded, “As long as the consent judgment stands, you cannot claim that your tenure has ended.”