INEC, ADC raise judicial eyebrows
By Adekunle Ade-Adeleye Generally, the courts are reluctant to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties. Since political parties are voluntary associations, registrable and possess corporate personalities, they are
By Adekunle Ade-Adeleye
Generally, the courts are reluctant to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties. Since political parties are voluntary associations, registrable and possess corporate personalities, they are accordingly veiled by the provisions of the law subject to the institution of an action by a litigant desirous of redress arising out of a perceived grievance. As far back as 1983, the Supreme Court in Onuoha v Okafor established the principle that the internal affairs and administration of a party are regulated by the constitution of the party and are non-justiciable. Obaseki JSC, delivering the lead judgment, held that “The question of who a political party should sponsor for an election is a political question which the courts have no jurisdiction to entertain. The choice of a candidate is the internal affair of the political party and the courts will not interfere in the exercise of that discretion.”
Recently, the Supreme Court applied this principle in the 2023 Plateau Governorship Election in affirming Caleb Mutfwang as the duly elected Governor of Plateau State. The Court ruled that the issue of party nomination was a pre-election matter and that the appeal against Mutfwang lacked merit. The court also applied the principle in 2025 by setting aside the judgement that declared Julius Abure the National Chairman of the Labour Party. In other words, if there is any dispute within a party, then the party should look inwards at its constitution and seek remedy through its internal organs.
Advertisement
300x250
There are, however, exceptions. First, where a party is in breach of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), then the courts may be vested with jurisdiction to hear the case instituted by a litigant with locus standi. Second, where a party contravenes the provisions of the Electoral Act, the courts may assume jurisdiction if a person with locus standi commences action. Third, the courts may also assume jurisdiction where a political party has violated its own constitution. The general rule is that a party must obey its own constitution.
This was held in Tarzoor v. Ioraer and PDP v Sylva among others. However, these cases were with respect to nomination of a candidate for election. It is a different issue where the matter has to do with party leadership separate from elections. Fourth is where there has been a breach of fundamental human rights. It is important to note that the courts will not tell a litigant what cause of action he should sue under nor will the Court grant a relief not sought. The court will only determine a subject matter according to the originating processes filed before the court.
READ ALSO: Outrage after security guard smashes 13-yr-old son’s head against toilet’s water closet
By virtue of Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022, “the election of members of the executive committee or other governing body of a political party, including the election to fill a vacant position in any of the aforesaid bodies, shall be conducted in a democratic manner and allowing for all members of the party or duly elected delegates to vote in support of a candidate of their choice.”
The Act states nothing further to render this provision justiciable, but Court judgments have nonetheless refrained from interfering in causes with respect to internal leadership of a party. Thus in Aguma v APC and Osagie v PDP, the court still refused to interfere in intra-party leadership jousts.
Therefore, because a political party is seen as a voluntary organisation, the courts generally refrain from interfering in its leadership tussles. In Anyanwu v Emmanuel & 3 Ors, the recent crisis within PDP for the position of national secretary of the party was brought before the court for adjudication. The Court chose to refrain from appointing or removing a political party's executive, choosing instead to refer the case to the internal organs of a party. This dispute is effectively put to bed in the Electoral Act 2026, where Section 83 (5) and (6) delivers the coup de grace to any hopes litigants may have of vesting any courts with jurisdiction over political parties' internal affairs.
