Concerns have been raised over what many senior lawyers and retired judicial officers describe as a troubling pattern of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties.
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 reactions from legal stakeholders and professional bodies.
So This Happened (EP 386) reviews: US issues travel warning, withdraws embassy staff from Abuja0:00 / 0:00
According to The Punch Newspaper, the Nigerian Bar Association had, in a statement on Friday 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.
According to the NBA, the recent developments raise serious constitutional and rule-of-law concerns that require urgent attention.
“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.
“We particularly deprecate the disturbing involvement by lawyers and courts in the internal affairs of political parties despite the clear provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026,” Osigwe stated, referencing Section 83, which stipulates that no court shall entertain suits pertaining to party internal affairs.
Retired justice raises alarm
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,” he said. “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.”
According to the retired jurist, the increasing willingness of some courts to assume jurisdiction in such matters suggests a deeper institutional problem within the judiciary.
“This is not judicial activism; it is judicial overreach,” he added. “If not urgently addressed, it could delegitimise the judiciary in the eyes of the public.”
He also expressed concern over the growing incidence of conflicting court orders, describing the trend 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 sets it aside or 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 to secure favourable outcomes, courts could lose 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.
SANs back NBA stance
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Olu Daramola, aligned with the NBA’s position, describing the concerns raised by the association as both legally and logically sound.
Speaking in an interview with Sunday PUNCH, Daramola stressed that the principle of non-interference in party affairs has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court and remains a settled aspect of Nigerian jurisprudence.
“This is clearly the position of the law as decided by the Supreme Court in several cases,” he said. “If democracy is to be sustained in Nigeria, courts and lawyers must exercise restraint in interfering in matters expressly prohibited by law.”
He emphasised that jurisdiction is fundamental to 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.
Daramola warned that democracy in the country remains fragile and must be protected through strict adherence to legal boundaries by all stakeholders, including judges, lawyers, political actors, and electoral authorities.
“Democracy is fragile. It must not be taken for granted,” he said. “Democracy can only thrive when there is a virile opposition. The death of opposition is the death of democracy.”
He urged stakeholders, including the Independent National Electoral Commission, to learn from historical precedents, particularly the political events surrounding the 1983 elections.
Referencing the administration of Shehu Shagari, Daramola noted that judicial affirmation of electoral victory does not necessarily translate into 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.
Daramola also expressed reservations about recent interpretations of the legal doctrine of “status quo ante bellum” in political disputes.
He warned that misapplication of the concept could distort democratic processes.
The senior lawyer argued that judicial or administrative actions that alter an existing leadership structure within a political party—particularly where such structure existed before litigation—could undermine institutional neutrality.
“Since the party had leaders before the suit was filed, any action that removes or alters that leadership raises serious concerns,” he said.
He further criticised what he described as the growing ambiguity in judicial orders directing parties to maintain the “status quo,” noting that such directives are often subject to conflicting interpretations.
“The phrase ‘status quo’ is fluid and can easily be misinterpreted,” he said. “Judges must clearly define what they mean in each case rather than leaving parties to interpret it for themselves.”
Call for judicial restraint
Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Olalekan Ojo, also supported calls for judicial restraint, emphasising that courts are not meant to manage or administer political parties.
“The law is settled,” he said. “Courts should not interfere in the internal affairs of political parties. They are not meant to take over the management of such entities.”
Ojo warned that while litigants may continue to approach courts with politically motivated cases, judges must be cautious in granting orders that effectively place them in control of party affairs.
“Our judges should exercise restraint,” he said. “They must avoid making orders that amount to the judiciary running the affairs of political parties.”
He also cautioned against vague interim orders, particularly those involving the maintenance of the “status quo,” which he said often lead to confusion and abuse.
“The judge must define clearly what ‘status quo’ means in each context. Otherwise, parties and even institutions may interpret it in ways that create further disputes,” he added.
Shittu warns against jurisdictional overreach
Similarly, Dr Wahab Shittu (SAN) stressed the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to constitutional limits.
He warned that some litigants deliberately frame political disputes in legal terms to lure courts into matters that fall outside their jurisdiction.
“The judiciary must remain firmly within its constitutional role,” he said. “Courts are not platforms for settling intra-party conflicts or advancing political strategies.”
According to him, restraint is not a sign of weakness but a demonstration of respect for the rule of law.
“Where statutes limit judicial involvement, restraint reflects fidelity to the law,” he stated.
“Acting outside jurisdiction, no matter how well-intentioned, undermines the credibility of the courts.”
However, Shittu clarified that judicial restraint should not be mistaken for inaction, noting that courts must still intervene where legitimate legal rights are at stake.
“The key is balance,” he said. “Courts must act decisively when necessary but remain within the bounds of their authority.”
Historical and constitutional context
Offering a broader perspective, 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,” he said. “However, this position began to shift following the Supreme Court’s decision in cases like Ugwu v. Ararume and Amaechi v. INEC.”
He noted that these decisions introduced a legal threshold requiring political parties to justify certain actions, such as candidate substitution, thereby opening a narrow window for judicial intervention.
Olateju added that while the general rule remains non-interference, exceptions exist where breaches of statutory provisions or fundamental rights are alleged.
“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.
“This establishes the Constitution as the ultimate source of legal authority,” he said. “Any provision of the Electoral Act that conflicts with the Constitution would be void to the extent of that inconsistency.”
On the issue of forum shopping, Olateju described the practice as unethical, even if not strictly illegal.
“Forum shopping involves litigants seeking favourable jurisdictions, often in bad faith,” he said. “It undermines public confidence in the judiciary and damages the integrity of the legal system.”
He noted that the National Judicial Council has introduced measures to curb the practice, including policies on case assignment and judicial discipline. However, he admitted that the problem persists, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
Source: The Punch Newspaper