By Festus Okoye
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
Lawyers, judicial officers, civil society groups and organisations, and indeed critical stakeholders in the electoral process, are struggling to come to terms with the provisions of section 83(6) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which strips courts and tribunals of jurisdiction over the internal affairs of political parties and impose an astonishing penalty on the lawyer who filed the matter and on the plaintiff or complainant who initiated it.
The Supreme Court is clear that issues relating to the internal running and administration of political parties are not justiciable.
The Court is emphatic that lower courts must follow the precedent that political parties are voluntary associations entitled to regulate their own affairs, and that those who disagree with the party’s policies and programmes are free to leave.
It is therefore the discretion of the party member to remain in a club or the party, pay membership dues, and still be a second-class member. The decision of what to do is the member’s exclusive responsibility. The member can choose to stay or leave.
Yet some who disagree with how their parties are administered refuse to leave and instead head to court to challenge certain infractions by the party leadership.
In some instances, the courts assumed jurisdiction over the issues and condemned the impunity of the party leadership, while in others, they declined to exercise jurisdiction, insisting that parties must be allowed to evolve and resolve their own issues.
Of course, it is the law and practice that a court may assume jurisdiction and determine whether it has jurisdiction over a particular matter. Section 83(6) of the Electoral Act, 2026, has introduced a new and dangerous dimension to the challenge of internal democracy in political parties.
It provides that no court in Nigeria shall entertain any suit or matter relating to the internal affairs of a political party. It also provides that where such action is brought in contravention of section 83(6), no interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained by the court.
The court shall, in the circumstances, suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment, and shall give accelerated hearing to the matter.
The court shall, at the conclusion of the matter, impose costs of not less than N10,000,000.00 on the counsel who filed the action and not less than N10,000,000.00 on the Plaintiff/ Applicant, and in addition to payment to the Commission of any cost, including solicitors’ fees incurred by it where joined as a party. I am a firm advocate of internal party democracy and of allowing political parties to find their bearings or disappear.
Unfortunately, what we have in Nigeria cannot, in the real sense of the word, be described as political parties. They do not aggregate their members’ interests; they aggregate the interests of the government in power and its contractor and consultant friends.
They aggregate the interests of the owners of the parties and the interests of political godfathers. They are not rooted in the people, and their members and party leaders switch parties in search of a platform. They are, therefore, political platforms rather than parties.
In such circumstances, will it be just and equitable to allow such individuals and persons the sole discretion to determine who goes into party primaries and who is nominated as a party candidate? The political elite’s response to the challenge of internal party wrangling has been episodic, kneejerk and opportunistic.
They have dragged lawyers, who are ministers in the temple of justice, into the fray. Because of their nomadic nature and disposition, they are custodians of precedent, manipulating party structures and machinery to achieve dubious goals in party primaries and nominations.
When they move from one party to another, they encounter entrenched interests with equally dubious credentials for manipulating the party’s constitution and imposing candidates. This accounts for their hover
It is dangerous to deny an aggrieved citizen access to the courts to ventilate grievances. Without such access, they will take the law into their own hands…
ing over delegates’ primaries, direct primaries and consensus. Even so, most of them don’t believe in any of the modes and methods of party primaries except when they are at the receiving end.
Section 77 of the Electoral Act, 2026 provides that a party shall maintain a digital register of its members, containing the name, sex, date of birth, address, state, local government, ward, polling unit, National Identification Number and photograph, in both hard and soft copies.
Upon registration, a membership card shall be issued to the member. Each political party shall make such a register available to the Commission not later than 21 days before the date fixed for the party’s primaries, congresses or conventions.
Only members whose names are contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and to be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions.
No political party shall use any other register for party primaries, congresses and conventions except the register submitted to the Commission, and a party that fails to submit the membership register within the stipulated time shall not be eligible to field a candidate for that election.
The party member wants to contest the election, but the party has failed or refused to sell nomination forms and/or make them available to aspirants. Conversely, the party has printed only one nomination form for the governorship, one for each senatorial district, and one for membership in the House of Representatives.
His party has adopted the consensus model. He has not been given a form, and none has been sold to him. He has looked at section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2026, which provides that a political party that adopts a consensus candidate shall secure the written consent of all cleared aspirants for the position, indicating their voluntary withdrawal from the race and their endorsement of the consensus candidate.
He doesn’t know whether he is a cleared aspirant within the context of section 87, since the party refused to sell him a form. He decides to go to court to challenge the party for refusing to issue him a form and to find out whether anyone can be considered a cleared aspirant, since the party printed only one form.
The problem is that the individual cannot approach any court unless well-resourced, and no lawyer will take on the risk of representing a client who is not well-resourced.
The aspirant, or so-called aspirant, must not have less than N10,000,000.00, which may be imposed as costs on the plaintiff if the court concludes that the matter is an internal affair of the party. The plaintiff must also deposit with the law another N10,000,000.00 or more, which the court will impose on the counsel who filed the action.
In addition, the court may order the Commission to pay any costs, including solicitors’ fees, incurred by it where it is joined as a party. The gagging of lawyers from assisting clients in ventilating their grievances in court amounts to legislative dictatorship.
Lawmakers conveniently overlook the fact that Nigeria is a constitutional democracy, governed by a written constitution that serves as the charter of government.
Sections 6 and 36(1) of that Constitution vest the judicial powers of the federation in the courts and require aggrieved citizens to seek justice there rather than take the law into their own hands. Is it fair, just, and equitable to allow an inferior enactment, such as the Electoral Act, 2026, to deny a citizen access to the courts? Is it fair to punish lawyers for going to court on a matter they consider novel and of serious constitutional and legal implications?
A lawyer cannot sit in his of- fice and decide or pass judgment on whether a novel matter is justiciable or whether the court has jurisdiction over it.
I agree that there are notorious matters with numerous precedents; courts describe the filing of such matters as vexatious and an abuse of the court process, and impose appropriate penalties. Courts also determine whether they have jurisdiction over certain issues and matters.
It is dangerous to deny an aggrieved citizen access to the courts to ventilate grievances. Without such access, they will take the law into their own hands, thereby endanger- ing democracy, the rule of law, and due process.
Lawyers, on the other hand, should heed the admonition of Abubakar, J.S.C., in Braimoh v. Ododo, to examine their clients’ cases before heading to court; they must be sincere in their assessment and have an honest, truthful professional conviction that their clients must be heard.
As an added bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE ebook titled: “How to use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion.”
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACiarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
LAWBREED — Equipping You For Greater Success!
_______________________________________________________________________
