By Confidence Mbang, Esq, LL.M
The Law
Recently, the judiciary has faced harsh criticisms due to the entertainment of matters relating to internal party affairs. Many commentators rebuked the judiciary for interpreting the law contrary to the intentions of the legislature, while others hailed the court for refusing to have its jurisdiction ousted on internal party matters. Behind this divergence lies various sentiments – political, ethnic, and moral. But one thing must be bore in mind; the law is the law, and the judiciary has the responsibility to interpreted the Lex Lata ‘the law as it is’, and not the Delege Feranda ‘the law as it ought to be’.
Accordingly, section 83 of the Electoral Act, 2026 (hereafter the Act) squarely provides for monitoring of political parties by the Independent National Electoral Commission (hereafter INEC). In sub-section 1, the Act provides that the Commission shall keep records of the activities of all the registered political parties.
To the kernel of this discourse, section 83(5) of the Act stipulates that “subject to the provision of subsection” (3), no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party. The legal implication is that no person and/or political party has the right to institute any action concerning the internal affairs or business of a political party. The phrase ‘internal affairs of a political parties’ refers to the affairs that involve the internal administration or the internal matters of a particular political party. Therefore, there is no absolute ouster clause in isolation – the critical qualifier is the phrase “subject to the provision of subsection (3).” The question that follows is: what does subsection (3) provide? The sub-section provides that: “The Commission may direct its enquiry under subsection (2) to the Chairman or Secretary of the political party at the national, state, local government or area council or ward level, as the case may be.” One may wonder, what kind of ‘enquiry’ does the law contemplate the commission – in this case, INEC – to make? Sub-section (2) answers thus: The Commission may seek information or clarification from any registered political party in connection with any activity of the political party which may be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or any other law, guidelines, rules or regulations made under an Act of the National Assembly.
This is where the final qualification of the purported absolute ouster clause was made unabsolute. Although, across the entire sub-sections of section 83 of the Act, the legislature tactically avoided stating clearly that actions may be instituted in relation to internal matters where activities run contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or any other law, guidelines, rules or regulations made by the same National Assembly – that was in fact, a delibrate ommission, and the courts has stood firmly to exercise it’s jurisdiction concerning those matters. Sub-section 2 created a leeway for matters relating to internal party affairs to be instituted.
At this juncture, the question that begs for an answer is: what are the matters relating to internal party affairs that are not justiciable, and those that are justiciable?
What Constitutes a Non-Justiciable Internal Party Affair?
These are matters that fall squarely within the domestic governance of a political party as a voluntary association. For instance, leadership and factional disputes, quarrels over who legitimately holds office as national chairman, secretary, or other party executive positions. In Sunday Anyanwu v. Emmanuel (2025) JELR 113772 (SC), the apex court held that leadership disputes within parties are non-justiciable and fall outside judicial authority. Also, candidate nomination/selection processes fall squarely under the internal affairs of primaries where no external constitutional or statutory right is violated. In Uba v. Ozigbo (2021) LLJR SC, the court ruled that candidate nomination processes remain exclusively within party control. Further, decisions of party meetings, congresses, and conventions are non-justiciable.
The jurisprudence behind this principle is that a party is supreme over its own affairs when all members of the party obey the rules of the party to which they gave their consent to be bound when they freely joined. A party is being treated by the court analogous to a private club. Accordingly, the procedural consequences of this principle is that where such a suit is instigated, no interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained by the Court, and the Court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment and shall give accelerated hearing to the matter. A ten (10) million naira fine shall be imposed severally on any lawyer and the plaintiff that institutes such action.
What Constitutes a Justiciable Internal Party Affair?
The ouster clause under section 83(5) is not absolute and does not extend to matters where a legally enforceable right created either by statute, the party’s own constitution, or the 1999 Constitution is alleged to have been breached. A political party is not a law unto himself, therefore, courts retain the jurisdiction to entertain matters involving violations of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or legally enforceable rights created by party rules.
The constitutional basis for this exception is unassailable. By section 4(8) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, “save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, the exercise of legislative powers by the National Assembly or by a House of Assembly shall be subject to the jurisdiction of courts of law and of judicial tribunals established by law, and accordingly, the National Assembly or a House of Assembly shall not enact any law that ousts or purports to oust the jurisdiction of a court of law.” And by section 6(6)(b) of the said Constitution, the judicial powers vested in Nigerian courts “shall extend to all matters between persons.”
Accordingly, the Court cannot be totally rob of jurisdiction. The categories of justiciable internal party matters includes; breach of the party’s own constitution – where a member can demonstrate that the party acted contrary to its own validly enacted rules, the court may intervene to enforce those rules as a contractual/constitutional document freely subscribed to by members. Also, the courts may intervene where the dispute qualifies as a pre-election matter under Section 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution. Furthermore, by virtue of section 29(6) of the Act, where the Court determines that any of the information contained in the affidavit is false only as it relates to constitutional requirements of eligibility, the Court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate and the sponsoring political party.
Furthermore, matters affecting the electoral process regulated by law are also justiciable. For instance, where internal party decisions have consequences for the electoral process regulated by law, such as disputes arising from the conduct of party primaries, the nomination of candidates, or the submission of candidates to INEC, such disputes may transcend purely domestic party matters and become issues of legal significance warranting judicial determination. Finally, violation of constitutional rights are justiciable. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle in Ishaku v. Audi & Ors SC/CV/35/2026, where the Court clarified that while emphasising that the dispute transcended internal party matters as it involved an infraction of constitutional rights, the Electoral Act, and the party’s guidelines, each case must be analysed based on its peculiar facts.
It should be noted that the distinction is not whether the dispute originates within a political party, but whether the resolution of the dispute requires the court to enforce a legal right created by law (including the party’s own constitution as a binding instrument) or merely to substitute its judgment for that of party organs on a matter of pure political discretion. Therefore, the legal practitioner’s task in any given case is to characterise the claim with precision. Where the claim is grounded in a legally enforceable right traceable to statute, the 1999 Constitution, or the party’s own constitution, it survives the ouster clause. However, where it is merely a disagreement about the outcome of an internal party political process, the court lacks jurisdiction and the severe cost sanctions applies.
