By Our Correspondent

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has reaffirmed the principle of party supremacy, directing the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to handle its internal affairs regarding the dispute over the office of National Secretary.

In a unanimous decision, the apex court dismissed an appeal by Senator Samuel Anyanwu, who sought to overturn the Court of Appeal’s judgment that removed him from the position. The court ruled that political parties have the autonomy to manage their leadership selection processes, provided they adhere to their constitutions and the laws of the land.

The legal battle, which pitted Anyanwu against Rt. Hon. Sunday Udeh-Okoye, had escalated through the lower courts, culminating in this landmark ruling. The Supreme Court set aside the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, which had affirmed Udeh-Okoye as the PDP National Secretary.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that the judiciary should not interfere in the internal management of political parties beyond ensuring due process, fairness, and adherence to democratic principles. It urged the PDP leadership, including its National Working Committee (NWC), to resolve the matter in line with the party’s constitution.

The decision is seen as a victory for political party autonomy and a call to strengthen internal democracy. The PDP is now expected to act swiftly in implementing the court’s directive, ensuring unity and stability within its ranks.

With this ruling, the recommendations of the South East Caucus of the PDP, which nominated Rt. Hon. SKE Udeh-Okoye as National Secretary, are likely to be upheld and implemented.

By Our Correspondent

In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg has unanimously determined that there is no inherent right to same-sex marriage under the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision, rendered by 47 judges representing the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over same-sex marriage across Europe.

The ruling, which has drawn surprisingly little media attention, was based on a variety of philosophical, anthropological, and legal considerations. The court’s interpretation of Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights was central to its decision. Article 12 enshrines the right to marry but does not explicitly guarantee this right to same-sex couples.

The judges asserted that the notion of family, as traditionally understood, pertains specifically to the union between a man and a woman. The court held that there is no obligation under the Convention for member states to open marriage to persons of the same sex. This interpretation aligns with similar provisions in other international treaties, such as Article 17 of the American Convention on Human Rights (San José Pact) and Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Furthermore, the court addressed concerns about discrimination, stating that governments are not compelled to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples and that reserving marriage for heterosexual couples does not constitute discrimination under the Convention.

The ruling comes amid ongoing debates over the legal recognition of same-sex relationships across Europe. While several European countries have legalized same-sex marriage, this judgment reinforces the principle that such decisions remain within the purview of individual states.

The court’s decision is expected to influence future legal interpretations and legislative actions regarding same-sex marriage in Europe. However, it has also sparked controversy and concern among LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, who argue that the ruling could hinder progress toward equal rights.

As this significant legal development unfolds, it is crucial for the public to be informed. The ruling underscores the complexity of balancing traditional views of marriage with evolving societal norms and the protection of human rights.

This judgment may not be widely covered in mainstream media, but its implications for the rights of same-sex couples across Europe are profound. As discussions on this topic continue, the role of national governments in determining marriage laws remains a pivotal issue in the broader human rights discourse.