By Nnamdi Collins Enenwali Esq
I have gone through S. 83 of the Electoral Act 2026 which has elicited much attention in the polity and I simply cannot arrive at a construction that no court in Nigeria has jurisdiction over intra party matters.
I forcefully argue that such a position can only follow if the reader reads S 83(5) in isolation to the other provisions of that section.
The said S 83(5) which is being quoted as robbing courts of jurisdiction over intra party affairs is a subordinate section dependent on a principal section S 83 (3).
This is readily obvious when you consider the words “subject to the provision of subsection (3)…” which go before “no court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party”.
-Follow me-
Now, the said principal section also makes reference to S 83 (2) which is about INEC’s duty to seek information or clarification from a registered political party in relation to any activity of the political party which may be contrary to the provisions of the Grundnorm or other extant law.
If you observe, the principal section to the said S 83 (5) is specifying persons to whom INEC can direct enquiries in relation to that search for information or clarification- the Chairman of a Political Party at all levels etc.
-Stay Patient-
Now, it is the position in S 83(4) that comes immediately before S 83 (5) that a Political Party is liable to a fine that is not to be more than 1million naira should it fail to supply information or clarification when INEC requests for it. Furthermore, the fine is applicable, according to that provision, where INEC gives a lawful directive to the Political Party and the Party fails to carry it out.
This gist before the said S 83 (5) leads me to a reasoned position that S 83 (5) rather than sustaining a position of the lack of jurisdiction by courts over intra party affairs is specifying the “Necessary Parties” before the court in respect of intra party matters.
The Necessary parties are INEC (the regulator saddled with the duty of monitoring political parties) and the Political Party, and the latter takes the fine where INEC prevails in court over the matter. Obviously, INEC cannot be the judge in a matter where the Political Party feels that its activity is by law and INEC feels otherwise. It is the Court that would intervene in such a situation.
The gist of S 83 is that INEC monitors every activity of political parties. This makes it imperative that any member of a political
party that feels that the party is not acting according to the rules of established norms or extant law (where INEC is not aware) must report to INEC the regulator. INEC on its own or on receiving this report may seek information or clarification from the political party through those specified persons or issue such directive that it considers lawful to the political party.
INEC can approach the Court to enforce such lawful directive where the political party is not in compliance of extant rules or laws.
It does seem to me that INEC has been elevated to the status of primary arbiter over intra party disputes with the decisions of INEC qualified to be challenged in court if the political party insists that such decision is not rooted in law.
The provision of “costs” in S 83(6) (b) “at the conclusion of the matter” also makes nonsense of the position that “no court has jurisdiction over internal party affairs” since it is obvious that the issue of costs comes after the court has exercised jurisdiction over the matter.
The point that must be stressed is that the issue of costs applies to an instance of negation of the provision of S 83- that is to say, an instance where the “Necessary Party” (INEC or the Political Party) has not moved the court on an intra party affair. The party before the court has evaded the “INEC route” to approach the court directly over the matter, probably, as a Proper Party.
Again, I have read a submission flying on social media that I consider erroneous (I may stand corrected) to the effect that the Court cannot issue an interim or interlocutory injunction on the matter in this instance that I hold as “the proper party being before the Court”. The correct position by the provision of S 83 (6) (a) is that a ruling on application by a party of interim or interlocutory injunction would be delivered at the stage of final judgment as the Court would be giving accelerated hearing to the matter. If a party applies for an interim or interlocutory injunction, the Court would rightfully not entertain it but would reserve ruling on it until the final judgment. The fact of a final judgment rightfully questions the place of an interim or interlocutory injunction that are temporary pre-trial remedy until it dawns on one that an appellate court may suspend or stay the effect of that judgment pending appeal; a Court may grant interim reliefs on the undecided aspects of
a case despite final judgment and injunctive reliefs may regulate how judgment is carried out. Therefore, the anticipation is that interim or interlocutory judgment cannot follow before judgment. It is only contemplated after judgment.
Let me conclude with a constitutional challenge to the position that “no Court has jurisdiction over internal party affairs”.
Any law positing same would not be a valid law standing in contravention of S 4(8) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution as amended.
According to that section, “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 or of a judicial tribunal established by law”.
By Section 6(6) (b) of the said Constitution, the judicial powers vested in Nigerian courts “shall extend to all matters between persons”…… (For instance, the person of a member of a political party and the person of the political party, the person of INEC and the person of the political party, etc)
After all, by Section 1 (1) and Section 77(1) of the Electoral Act 2026, INEC and any political party registered under the Electoral Act 2026 are respectively, body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in their corporate name.
Consequently, a law robbing courts of jurisdiction over internal party affairs is an obvious affront to the settled jurisdiction of Nigerian Courts as per the Constitution. More so, the Electoral Act 2026 which contains that purported provision robbing courts of jurisdiction over internal party affairs is the result of the exercise of legislative power which is also subject to the jurisdiction of courts.
By the wording of S 4(8) of the said constitution- “save as otherwise provided by this constitution”…, it does seem to me that only the Nigerian Constitution can expressly rob courts of jurisdiction over internal affairs of a political party. By the provisions of S (1) (3) of the said Constitution, “if any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution, the constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void”. Therefore, any provision that purports to rob Courts of jurisdiction over internal party affairs would not prevail against the Constitution being inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution that is the “Grundnorm”.
It is also a settled principle of law vide the Supreme Court position in AGI v. PDP & Ors (2016) LPELR-SC.256/2016 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 and the Court would only interfere where the party has violated its own rules.
It therefore follows that the Court can rightly exercise jurisdiction over internal party affairs in appropriate situations such as when the complaint is that the political party has violated its rules etc.
At this juncture and by way of final conclusions, I revert to the core submission that all that S 83 of the Electoral Act 2026 has done is to place INEC at the center of the resolution of intra party disputes as primary arbiter and also make INEC and any Registered Political Party, Necessary Parties in Intra Party matters before the Court. If INEC meets a deadlock in interactions with a political party in relation to the activity of the political party, the Court is to be rightly engaged and if the role of INEC as primary arbiter is bypassed, that party approaching the Court does so at the real risk of costs.
Nnamdi Collins Enenwali is a Legal Practitioner based in Enugu and can be reached on +2348134886985 (kosicollins@proton.me)
In this article