Fresh concerns have emerged within Nigeria’s legal community over what stakeholders describe as growing judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties, despite clear statutory restrictions.
The alarm follows a series of recent court rulings linked to leadership disputes within political parties, particularly the African Democratic Congress, which critics say contradict provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
At the centre of the controversy is Section 83 of the Act, which expressly bars courts from entertaining cases relating strictly to intra-party matters.
The Nigerian Bar Association had, on Friday, warned that continued judicial involvement in such disputes could undermine democratic governance and erode public confidence in the judiciary.
In a statement signed by its President, Afam Osigwe (SAN), the association described the trend as troubling and constitutionally questionable.
“These developments… raise serious constitutional, democratic, and rule-of-law concerns that require immediate intervention,” the NBA said, adding that it “deprecates the disturbing involvement by lawyers and courts in the internal affairs of political parties.”
A retired Justice of the Court of Appeal, who spoke anonymously, described the development as a direct violation of the law and warned of far-reaching consequences for Nigeria’s democracy.
“The Electoral Act is unambiguous. Once a matter pertains strictly to internal party affairs—be it leadership tussles or candidate selection—the courts have no business intervening,” he said.
He further warned that the increasing issuance of conflicting court orders by courts of coordinate jurisdiction was “embarrassingly frequent” and capable of weakening the rule of law.
According to him, the trend encourages forum shopping and risks turning courts into “battlegrounds for political actors seeking favourable judgments.”
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Olu Daramola, aligned with the NBA, stressing that the principle of non-interference in party affairs is well-established in Nigerian jurisprudence.
He noted that courts must first determine jurisdiction before entertaining any matter, warning that failure to do so threatens democratic stability.
“Democracy is fragile. It must not be taken for granted. The death of opposition is the death of democracy,” Daramola said.
He also cautioned against the misapplication of the legal doctrine of status quo, noting that vague judicial orders often create confusion and conflicting interpretations.
Another SAN, Olalekan Ojo, reiterated that courts are not constitutionally empowered to manage or administer political parties.
“Our judges must exercise restraint and avoid orders that amount to running the affairs of political parties,” he said, warning that ambiguous directives could further deepen disputes.
Similarly, Wahab Shittu (SAN) stressed the need for judicial discipline, noting that some litigants deliberately frame political disputes to lure courts into assuming jurisdiction.
“Courts are not platforms for settling intra-party conflicts or advancing political strategies,” he said, adding that acting outside jurisdiction undermines judicial credibility.
Providing historical context, human rights lawyer Taofiq Olateju explained that while courts traditionally avoided intra-party disputes, certain Supreme Court decisions have created limited exceptions.
He noted that cases involving breaches of statutory provisions or fundamental rights could still fall within judicial purview, as guaranteed under the Constitution.
Olateju, however, warned against the growing practice of forum shopping, describing it as unethical and damaging to the integrity of the judiciary.
Although measures have been introduced by regulatory bodies to curb the trend, he said politically sensitive cases continue to test the limits of judicial neutrality.
With tensions rising ahead of future electoral cycles, legal experts are urging stricter adherence to the Electoral Act and greater judicial restraint to preserve the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic process.
They warned that failure to respect jurisdictional limits could erode public trust in the judiciary and weaken its role as an impartial arbiter in the nation’s democracy.
Source : The Punch
'
'Do you want to share a story with us? Do you want to advertise with us? Do you need publicity for a product, service, or event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348183319097 Email: platformtimes@gmail.com
We are committed to impactful investigative journalism for human interest and social justice. Your donation will help us tell more stories. Kindly donate any amount HERE
