Opposition is growing against the emergence of Callistus Okafor as the new factional National Chairman of the Labour Party.
In separate interviews, Umar Farouk, the National Secretary of the party, and Prof. Theophilus Ndubuaku, the Deputy President of the Nigeria Labour Congress Political Commission, both rejected Okafor’s claims to leadership.
While the spotlight has been on the ongoing dispute between the Julius Abure-led National Working Committee and the caretaker committee, consisting of 29 members and chaired by former minister Nenadi Usman, Okafor took the opportunity to declare his position.
At a press conference in Abuja last Friday, Okafor, who previously served as the deputy national chairman of the Labour Party, asserted that he is the legitimate leader of the party.
The factional chairman asserted that his move to assume control of the party from Abure was supported by a 2018 consent judgment from the Federal High Court, which he claimed had been overlooked.
He elaborated that this judgment was issued in the wake of a leadership dispute between the late national chairman of the Labour Party, Abdulkadir Salam, and another faction led by Salisu Mohammed, who had also proclaimed himself the national caretaker chairman at that time.
Okafor contended that the Abure-led National Working Committee had taken advantage of the situation and established a flawed structure, which ultimately led to Abure’s ascent as national chairman, due to their failure to adhere to the court order.
The factional chairman claimed that his decision to ‘take over’ the party’s leadership from Abure was supported by a 2018 consent judgment from the Federal High Court, which he alleged had been disregarded.
He clarified that this judgment was issued in the context of a leadership dispute involving the late Labour Party national chairman, Abdulkadir Salam, and another faction led by Salisu Mohammed, who had also declared himself the national caretaker chairman at that time.
Okafor asserted that the Abure-led National Working Committee had taken advantage of the situation and established a flawed foundation for their leadership, resulting from their failure to comply with the court order.
In response to the situation, Farouk rejected Okafor’s rationale, stating that he was simply taking advantage of the ongoing turmoil within the party’s leadership.
The Labour Party’s national secretary also held Abia State Governor Alex Otti responsible for the internal discord that is increasingly resulting in factions within the party.
“Okafor’s claim to be the legitimate national chairman of the party shouldn’t come as a surprise. It is not new to us. If Governor Otti can wake up one day and decide to illegitimately form a caretaker committee, Tom, Dick, and Harry can equally claim to be the leader of the Labour Party. That is the danger of what they have done.
“I believe you know the NLC has also created one they call ‘National Transition Committee.’ But in the end, it will be the court that determines the true leaders and legal officers of the party. Until then, Okafor is free to make noise all over the place.”He said.
The NLC faction dismissed Okafor’s assertion of party leadership as laughable.
Prof. Ndubuaku noted that Nigerians are already aware of the commitments of Otti, LP presidential candidate Peter Obi, and other key stakeholders.
