Concerns are mounting within Nigeria’s legal and judicial community over what many senior lawyers and retired judicial officers describe as a troubling pattern of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, raising fresh questions about the limits of court jurisdiction in political disputes.
The growing anxiety follows a series of recent court decisions, particularly those linked to the leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress, which critics argue appear to contradict the clear provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
At the centre of the debate is Section 83 of the Electoral Act, which explicitly bars courts from entertaining cases relating strictly to the internal affairs of political parties. Despite this provision, several rulings in recent months have reignited concerns about the judiciary’s role in political disputes, prompting strong reactions from legal stakeholders and professional bodies.
The Nigerian Bar Association, in a statement signed by its President, Afam Osigwe (SAN), warned that continued judicial involvement in intra-party matters could undermine democratic principles and erode public confidence in the judiciary.
“These developments, particularly those arising from the interpretation and potential application of provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, raise serious constitutional, democratic, and rule-of-law concerns that require immediate intervention,” the statement read in part.
The association further criticised what it described as the “disturbing involvement” of lawyers and courts in matters that are expressly excluded from judicial jurisdiction, referencing Section 83, which stipulates that no court shall entertain suits pertaining to party internal affairs.
A retired Justice of the Court of Appeal, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described the trend as a direct violation of the law and warned of its implications for Nigeria’s democratic stability.
“The Electoral Act is unambiguous. Once a matter pertains strictly to the internal affairs of a political party—whether it involves congresses, leadership tussles, or candidate selection—the courts have no business intervening. Section 83 was deliberately crafted to prevent exactly what we are witnessing today,” he said.
According to the retired jurist, the increasing willingness of some courts to assume jurisdiction in such matters reflects a deeper institutional challenge within the judiciary.
“This is not judicial activism; it is judicial overreach. If not urgently addressed, it could delegitimise the judiciary in the eyes of the public,” he added.
He also raised concerns over the increasing frequency of conflicting court orders, describing the situation as “embarrassingly frequent” and dangerous for the rule of law.
“We now see situations where one court grants an order and another court of coordinate jurisdiction issues a contrary order. This creates confusion, encourages forum shopping, and ultimately weakens the rule of law,” he said.
The ex-justice warned that if political actors begin to perceive the judiciary as a tool for securing favourable outcomes, courts risk losing their credibility as impartial arbiters.
“When political actors realise they can shop for favourable judgments, the courts become battlegrounds rather than temples of justice. That is dangerous for democracy,” he added.
Backing the NBA’s position, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Olu Daramola, described the concerns as both legally grounded and consistent with established Supreme Court precedents.
“This is clearly the position of the law as decided by the Supreme Court in several cases. If democracy is to be sustained in Nigeria, courts and lawyers must exercise restraint in interfering in matters expressly prohibited by law,” he said.
Daramola emphasised that jurisdiction remains the foundation of any judicial proceeding and must be established before a court entertains a case.
“When a matter is filed in court, the first duty of the court is to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction. Where it is clear from the originating processes that the court lacks jurisdiction, it must decline to entertain the suit,” he stated.
He warned that Nigeria’s democracy remains fragile and must be protected through strict adherence to legal boundaries by all stakeholders.
“Democracy is fragile. It must not be taken for granted. Democracy can only thrive when there is a virile opposition. The death of opposition is the death of democracy,” he said.
Drawing from historical context, Daramola referenced the political events surrounding the 1983 elections, noting that judicial affirmation of electoral victories does not necessarily guarantee political stability.
“Shagari won what was termed a ‘moon-slide victory’ in 1983. The victory was affirmed in court, but in less than three months, the government collapsed, and there was widespread jubilation across the country,” he recalled.
He also expressed concerns over the interpretation of the legal doctrine of “status quo ante bellum” in political disputes, warning that ambiguity in its application could distort democratic processes.
“The phrase ‘status quo’ is fluid and can easily be misinterpreted. Judges must clearly define what they mean in each case rather than leaving parties to interpret it for themselves,” he said.
Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Olalekan Ojo, reinforced the call for judicial restraint, stressing that courts are not meant to manage or administer political parties.
“The law is settled. Courts should not interfere in the internal affairs of political parties. They are not meant to take over the management of such entities,” he said.
Ojo cautioned judges against issuing vague interim orders, particularly those involving the maintenance of the “status quo,” noting that such directives often lead to confusion and abuse.
“Our judges should exercise restraint. They must avoid making orders that amount to the judiciary running the affairs of political parties,” he added.
Similarly, Dr Wahab Shittu (SAN) emphasised the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to constitutional limits, warning that some litigants deliberately frame political disputes in legal terms to draw courts into matters outside their jurisdiction.
“The judiciary must remain firmly within its constitutional role. Courts are not platforms for settling intra-party conflicts or advancing political strategies,” he said.
According to him, restraint reflects fidelity to the rule of law rather than weakness.
“Where statutes limit judicial involvement, restraint reflects fidelity to the law. Acting outside jurisdiction, no matter how well-intentioned, undermines the credibility of the courts,” he added.
However, Shittu clarified that restraint should not be mistaken for inaction, noting that courts must still intervene where legitimate legal rights are at stake.
“The key is balance. Courts must act decisively when necessary but remain within the bounds of their authority,” he said.
Providing broader legal context, human rights lawyer Taofiq Olateju explained that the principle of non-interference in party affairs has evolved over time through judicial precedent.
“Historically, Nigerian courts maintained that internal party matters were non-justiciable, particularly around 1983. However, this position began to shift following Supreme Court decisions in cases like Ugwu v. Ararume and Amaechi v. INEC,” he said.
Olateju noted that while these rulings introduced limited grounds for judicial intervention, the general principle of non-interference remains intact, except in cases involving breaches of statutory provisions or fundamental rights.
“In such cases, lawyers often frame disputes as violations of constitutional rights under Chapter IV, thereby bringing them within the jurisdiction of the courts,” he explained.
He also emphasised the supremacy of the Constitution over all other laws, including the Electoral Act, noting that any conflicting provision would be void to the extent of its inconsistency.
On the issue of forum shopping, Olateju described the practice as unethical and damaging to the integrity of the legal system.
“Forum shopping involves litigants seeking favourable jurisdictions, often in bad faith. It undermines public confidence in the judiciary and damages the integrity of the legal system,” he said, adding that although the National Judicial Council has introduced measures to curb the practice, the problem persists, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
As the debate intensifies, legal experts warn that unless firm steps are taken to reinforce judicial discipline and uphold statutory boundaries, the credibility of Nigeria’s judiciary and the stability of its democratic system could face increasing strain.
Discussion about this post