A retired Justice of the Court of Appeal, Activists, Senior Advocates of Nigeria, and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) have raised serious concerns about what they describe as
a troubling and growing pattern of judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties warning that the trend violates the clear provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, encourages forum shopping, generates conflicting court orders, and risks delegitimising the judiciary in the eyes of the public.The growing anxiety follows a series of court decisions linked particularly to the leadership crisis within the African Democratic Congress, where multiple suits before different judges of the Federal High Court have produced orders that critics argue directly
contradict Section 83 of the Electoral Act, which explicitly bars courts from entertaining cases relating strictly to the internal affairs of political parties.
The interventions from a retired appellate court judge, at least three Senior Advocates, a human rights lawyer, and the NBA itself represent the broadest and most forceful pushback yet by the legal establishment against what it views as the judiciary allowing itself to be weaponised in political disputes.
The NBA, in a statement signed by President Afam Osigwe SAN on Friday, set the tone for the debate by warning that continued judicial involvement in intra-party matters could undermine democratic principles and erode public confidence in the judiciary.
“These developments, particularly those arising from the interpretation and potential application of provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, raise serious constitutional, democratic, and rule-of-law concerns that require immediate intervention,” Osigwe stated.
The NBA President was pointed in his criticism.
“We particularly deprecate the disturbing involvement by lawyers and courts in the internal affairs of political parties despite the clear provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026,” Osigwe stated, referencing Section 83 which stipulates that no court shall entertain suits pertaining to party internal affairs.
The NBA threatened disciplinary action against lawyers who file such cases and called on the National Judicial Council to sanction judges who assume jurisdiction in matters barred by law.
A retired Justice of the Court of Appeal, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described the trend as a direct violation of the law and warned of grave implications for democratic stability.
“The Electoral Act is unambiguous. Once a matter pertains strictly to the internal affairs of a political party whether it involves congresses, leadership tussles, or candidate selection the courts have no business intervening. Section 83 was deliberately crafted to prevent exactly what we are witnessing today,” the retired jurist stated.
He characterised the trend not as judicial activism but as judicial overreach.
“This is not judicial activism; it is judicial overreach. If not urgently addressed, it could delegitimise the judiciary in the eyes of the public,” the former appellate judge warned.
He expressed particular concern about the growing incidence of conflicting court orders from courts of coordinate jurisdiction — a problem he described as “embarrassingly frequent” and dangerous for the rule of law.
“We now see situations where one court grants an order and another court of coordinate jurisdiction sets it aside or issues a contrary order. This creates confusion, encourages forum shopping, and ultimately weakens the rule of law,” he stated.
The retired justice warned that if the pattern continues, courts risk becoming political battlegrounds rather than temples of justice.
“When political actors realise they can shop for favourable judgments, the courts become battlegrounds rather than temples of justice. That is dangerous for democracy,” he declared.
Senior Advocate Olu Daramola aligned firmly with the NBA’s position, stressing that the principle of non-interference in party affairs has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court and remains settled Nigerian jurisprudence.
“This is clearly the position of the law as decided by the Supreme Court in several cases. If democracy is to be sustained in Nigeria, courts and lawyers must exercise restraint in interfering in matters expressly prohibited by law,” Daramola stated.
He emphasised that jurisdiction is fundamental to any judicial proceeding and must be established before a court entertains a case.
“When a matter is filed in court, the first duty of the court is to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction. Where it is clear from the originating processes that the court lacks jurisdiction, it must decline to entertain the suit,” Daramola stated.
The senior lawyer delivered a broader warning about the fragility of Nigeria’s democracy and the critical role of opposition.
“Democracy is fragile. It must not be taken for granted. Democracy can only thrive when there is a virile opposition. The death of opposition is the death of democracy,” Daramola declared.
He drew a historical parallel to underscore his point, referencing the 1983 elections and the administration of President Shehu Shagari.
“Shagari won what was termed a ‘moon-slide victory’ in 1983. The victory was affirmed in court, but in less than three months, the government collapsed, and there was widespread jubilation across the country,” Daramola recalled.
He urged stakeholders, including INEC, to learn from this historical precedent, warning that judicial or administrative actions that appear to favour one political side can have consequences far beyond the immediate dispute.
Daramola raised specific concerns about the interpretation and application of the legal doctrine of “status quo ante bellum” in political disputes — the very issue at the heart of the ADC leadership crisis.
“Since the party had leaders before the suit was filed, any action that removes or alters that leadership raises serious concerns,” Daramola stated, in what appeared to be a direct reference to INEC’s removal of the Mark-Aregbesola leadership from its portal following the Court of Appeal’s order.
He criticised the growing ambiguity in judicial orders directing parties to maintain the “status quo.”
“The phrase ‘status quo’ is fluid and can easily be misinterpreted. Judges must clearly define what they mean in each case rather than leaving parties to interpret it for themselves,” Daramola stated.
Senior Advocate Olalekan Ojo reinforced the calls for judicial restraint, emphasising that courts are not designed to manage or administer political parties.
“The law is settled. Courts should not interfere in the internal affairs of political parties. They are not meant to take over the management of such entities,” Ojo stated.
He warned judges against making orders that effectively place the judiciary in control of party affairs.
“Our judges should exercise restraint. They must avoid making orders that amount to the judiciary running the affairs of political parties,” Ojo stated.
He echoed Daramola’s concerns about vague “status quo” orders, calling on judges to define clearly what they mean in each context.
“Otherwise, parties and even institutions may interpret it in ways that create further disputes,” Ojo added.
Dr. Wahab Shittu SAN stressed the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to constitutional limits, warning that some litigants deliberately frame political disputes in legal terms to lure courts into matters outside their jurisdiction.
“The judiciary must remain firmly within its constitutional role. Courts are not platforms for settling intra-party conflicts or advancing political strategies,” Shittu stated.
He framed judicial restraint as a virtue rather than a limitation.
“Where statutes limit judicial involvement, restraint reflects fidelity to the law. Acting outside jurisdiction, no matter how well-intentioned, undermines the credibility of the courts,” Shittu stated.
However, he clarified that restraint should not be mistaken for inaction, noting that courts must still intervene where legitimate legal rights are at stake.
“The key is balance. Courts must act decisively when necessary but remain within the bounds of their authority,” Shittu stated.
Human rights lawyer Taofiq Olateju provided historical context for the current debate, explaining that the principle of non-interference has evolved through judicial precedent.
“Historically, Nigerian courts maintained that internal party matters were non-justiciable, particularly around 1983. However, this position began to shift following the Supreme Court’s decision in cases like Ugwu v. Ararume and Amaechi v. INEC,” Olateju explained.
Those landmark decisions introduced a legal threshold requiring political parties to justify certain actions, such as candidate substitution, thereby opening a narrow window for judicial intervention.
Olateju noted that while the general rule remains non-interference, exceptions exist where breaches of statutory provisions or fundamental rights are alleged.
“In such cases, lawyers often frame disputes as violations of constitutional rights under Chapter IV, thereby bringing them within the jurisdiction of the courts,” he explained.
He emphasised the supremacy of the Constitution over all other laws, including the Electoral Act.
“Any provision of the Electoral Act that conflicts with the Constitution would be void to the extent of that inconsistency,” Olateju stated a point that creates a potential opening for litigants to challenge Section 83’s blanket exclusion of jurisdiction on constitutional grounds.
On the growing problem of forum shopping where litigants seek out favourable jurisdictions Olateju described the practice as unethical even if not strictly illegal.
“Forum shopping involves litigants seeking favourable jurisdictions, often in bad faith. It undermines public confidence in the judiciary and damages the integrity of the legal system,” Olateju stated.
He noted that while the National Judicial Council has introduced measures to curb the practice, including policies on case assignment and judicial discipline, the problem persists, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
The ADC leadership crisis illustrates this problem starkly, with at least three suits before different Federal High Court judges, a state High Court case in Yola, and an appeal — creating a web of competing orders and jurisdictional claims that has confused parties, INEC, and the public.
While the legal commentators spoke in general terms about judicial overreach, the ADC crisis serves as the most immediate and consequential example of the phenomenon they describe.
The party currently faces suits before Justice Nwite (Gombe suit, hearing April 14), Justice Liman (Abejide suit, judgment April 13), Justice Lifu (deregistration suit, ruling April 17), and the Adamawa State High Court (state chairman’s suit, hearing April 15) — with INEC having removed the party’s leadership from its portal and refusing to engage with either faction.
The resulting paralysis — no recognised leadership, stalled congresses, collapsed convention plans, and senior leaders exploring exits to other parties — is precisely the kind of outcome that the legal establishment is warning against.
Whether courts will heed the calls for restraint, or whether litigants and judges will continue to use the judicial process as a tool for resolving political disputes that Section 83 was designed to keep out of the courtroom, will be tested in the coming week as multiple ADC-related cases reach critical stages.
The collective voice of the NBA, a retired appellate court justice, four Senior Advocates, and a human rights lawyer represents the most unified statement the legal profession has made on this issue — and
a warning that the judiciary’s credibility is at stake if the pattern continues.
In this article