NBA’s partisan threat
• The association’s president erred in law with his ouster clause barring courts from hearing cases on parties’ internal affairs The press release by the President of Nigerian Bar Association
• The association’s president erred in law with his ouster clause barring courts from hearing cases on parties’ internal affairs
The press release by the President of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mazi Afam Osigwe, titled: “Our Laws and Democracy must be protected at all times”, and similar sentiments expressed at other fora by the NBA president, sound very ennobling on the surface. But dig deep, it reads more like a political manifesto by a partisan head of an organisation that should be at the vanguard of the rule of law at all times, regardless of whose ox is gored.
The premise for that proclamation by the NBA president is Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which provides: “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 Act did not define what constitute the internal affairs of a party, but in the diatribe by the NBA president, it appears that the learned silk gave a carte blanche of what the Act envisages.
The NBA president went ahead to reference the provision of sub-section (6) which provides that “where such an action is brought in negation of this provision, 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”.
The learned silk, condemned both the lawyers and the courts which knowingly assume jurisdiction over disputes connected to political parties brought before the courts.
Read Also: FULL LIST: 10 new BVN rules Nigerians must know before May 1
He threatened that the NBA will take firm steps to deter lawyers who deliberately file actions aimed at procuring judicial interference in intra-party affairs, or who seek ex-parte or interlocutory orders in clear violation of statutory provisions. He said the NBA will not hesitate to bring petitions against such lawyers before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).
For judges who “knowingly assume jurisdiction in matter clearly barred by law, grant orders in respect of intra-party disputes in violation of statutory provisions, or lend the authority of the court to partisan political maneuvering”, the NBA will not hesitate to draw the attention of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to such conducts.
While on the face of it, such posturing looks good, the NBA president has not educated the general public on how the body will come to the conclusion that those actions offend the statutory provisions referred to. Will the NBA sit as a quasi-judicial panel to reach the conclusion, or will it be based on the whims and caprices of Mazi Osigwe, its president? Or indeed, will every matter connected to disputes within a political party be deemed a ‘no-go’ area?
We don’t know whether the learned silk read the provision of Section 88(2) of the same Act, which provides that “an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.” Clearly, Section 83 cannot be a blanket ban on the jurisdictional responsibility of the courts to adjudicate disputes arising from the laws of the land, or the statutory right of a legal practitioner to represent a client.
The NBA president cannot claim ignorance of the provision of section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). It provides: “The judicial powers vested in accordance with the provisions of this section – shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any persons in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any questions as to the civil rights and obligations of that persons.” We thought this constitutional provision grants the courts inherent jurisdictional powers.
Again, the constitution in section 1(3) provides: “If any law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”
Since we are not a law court, it will be presumptuous for us to assume that section 83 of the Electoral Act is inconsistent with the provision of section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, unless a court of competent jurisdiction makes such a pronouncement. But it would also be presumptuous for the NBA to preclude a court from hearing a petition and determining the rights of parties therein.
The inherent powers of the court which is constitutionally guaranteed should be protected by the foremost legal body like the NBA. It is such a court properly empanelled that should determine when an act of the applicant amounts to abuse of the process.
We think it should be the responsibility of the Bar to promote and protect such powers, and not engage in acts that may bring the hallowed responsibility of a judge to disrepute, directly or by innuendo.
Where a judge acts outside his jurisdiction, the hierarchy of courts provides opportunity for restitution. Where a judge acts corruptly, the NJC has the quasi-judicial powers to try such judge and administer disciplinary measures. Without any iota of doubt, the interpretation of statutory provisions is the responsibility of court, properly constituted as such, and not the responsibility of the NJC, regardless of the constitution of its members. For some, Mr Osigwe is partisan, and may have allowed his partisan interests to becloud his sense of judgment.
Like Mr Osigwe, we agree that parties should be at liberty to run their internal affairs, without let or hindrance. But where there are fundamental disputes, like in the case of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), where some members are alleging that the provision of the party’s constitution has been breached, the court cannot be estopped from coming to the aide of the aggrieved. Should the court be barred from hearing and resolving such disputes? We say no.
We believe that such state of affairs will be detrimental to the primary constituency of the NBA president, even though it may benefit in the short-run, the political interests of those who seek to use force to acquire the control of a political party.
