For years, Nigerian politicians have turned to the courts to resolve internal party disputes, from leadership tussles to candidate nominations.
This pattern has shaped electoral outcomes and, at times, destabilised the democratic process.
However, the Electoral Act 2026 insulates party affairs from judicial interference.
Section 83 (5) of the Electoral Act 2026 states that “no court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter about the internal affairs of a political party”.
Subsection 6 further stipulates that where such action is brought in negation of the Act, “no interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained by the court, but the court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment and shall give accelerated hearing to the matter”.
As a punishment to deter party members and their lawyers from dragging a political party to court over its internal affairs, the law prescribes heavy financial penalties.
Section 83 (6) (b) mandates that, at the conclusion of the case, the court must impose a minimum cost of N10 million each on the lawyer who filed the suit and the plaintiff or applicant. It also requires them to cover any costs incurred by the commission, including solicitors’ fees, where it is joined as a party.
In section 88(4), the Electoral Act goes further to explicitly bar courts from halting primaries or general elections pending the determination of a suit.
“Nothing in this section shall empower the courts to stop the holding of primaries or general elections under this Act pending the determination of a suit,” the section reads.
ADC CRISIS: A TEST CASE FOR THE LAW
Members of the opposition coalition at a recent ADC world press conference
Unfolding events within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) reveal a widening gap between what the law dictates and what is practised.
On April 1, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) said it would no longer recognise the ADC leadership led by David Mark, following the court of appeal interim ruling, which ordered parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum, the situation before the suit was filed at the federal high court.
This decision came against the backdrop of a leadership transition that began on July 2, 2025, when Ralph Nwosu, the party’s founder and national chairman, resigned and endorsed an interim leadership headed by Mark after opposition politicians adopted the ADC as their platform to challenge President Bola Tinubu’s re-election in 2027.
However, the arrangement was challenged by a faction led by Nafiu Bala, the party’s former deputy national chairman.
Bala insisted he never resigned and argued that he should assume leadership in line with the party’s constitution. The Mark camp, on the other hand, maintained that Bala had been part of the transition process and supported the new leadership.
What followed was predictable in Nigeria’s political landscape: a wave of litigation.
He then declared himself party chairman, vowing to go against the Mark leadership in court.
On September 2, 2025, Bala approached a federal high court in Abuja (Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025), seeking to stop Mark’s team members from parading themselves as party leaders.
He also sought an order restraining INEC from recognising them and compelling recognition of himself as the acting national chairman.
He further filed motions seeking to stop the party from holding meetings, congresses, or conventions pending the determination of the suit.
The motion ex parte was heard on September 4, 2025, and Emeka Nwite, the trial judge, directed that the respondents, including INEC, be put on notice to show cause why the motion ex parte should not be granted.
Apparently seeking to stop the suit, INEC, in an affidavit filed on September 12, 2025, asked the court to stay out of the “domestic affairs” of the ADC.
Ayuba, an assistant executive officer at INEC, deposed to the affidavit to explain why Bala’s application should not be granted.
“That the Plaintiff’s application is in substance an invitation to this Honourable Court to delve into issues of internal/domestic affairs of 1st Defendant as a political party,” the affidavit reads.
“That I know as a fact that a Court of record should not dabble into a political question, which remains the exclusive preserve of political parties, which should be allowed to do their thing.”
SUPREME COURT POSITION ON PARTY AFFAIRS
Over the years, the supreme court has held that disputes relating to the internal affairs of political parties — including leadership tussles and membership — are not justiciable and fall outside the jurisdiction of courts.
In a long line of decisions, the apex court ruled that political parties are voluntary associations governed by their own constitutions and that issues arising from their internal management must be resolved within the party.
In the case of Uba v. Ozigbo (2021), the supreme court made it clear that the nomination of candidates and party decisions are within the exclusive domain of political parties and not for judicial determination.
In a similar case, Anyanwu v. Emmanuel (2025), the apex court held that disputes over party leadership are internal matters and constitute a no-go area for courts.
Yet, despite these precedents, political actors continue to seek judicial intervention in intra-party disputes, testing the limits of the law for political advantage.
NBA: COURTS MUST NOT BE DRAWN INTO PARTIES’ INTERNAL AFFAIRS
In a statement on April 10, Afam Osigwe, president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), expressed concern over what he described as the increasing interference of courts in the internal affairs of political parties, despite clear provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 barring such actions.
According to him, this pattern reflects a disregard for statutory provisions and undermines the rule of law.
The NBA president urged judges to resist interfering in matters clearly barred by law and called for strict adherence to the Electoral Act, adding that the NBA would take disciplinary action against lawyers who file such cases to weaken Nigeria’s democracy.
Corroborating the NBA’s position, Festus Ogun, a human rights lawyer, said the “mischievous mischaracterisation” of the court of appeal status quo order has set a perilous precedent that must be urgently corrected by INEC.
Ogun said in the long run, politicians may approach the court over a leadership dispute and somehow find a way to make the court direct the maintenance of the status quo over the subject matter of the dispute.
