Says a word is enough for the wise
A decision of the Federal High Court in Abuja striking out a suit challenging the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Congress and awarding punitive costs of N10 million each against the plaintiff and his counsel has been identified by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria as what may be the first major casualty of Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026 a provision that expressly limits court interference in internal party affairs while attaching direct financial consequences to improperly instituted actions.
M.O. Ubani, SAN, a legal practitioner and policy analyst, flagged the significance of the decision in a legal commentary, warning aggrieved aspirants and their lawyers that as party primaries draw to a close across Nigeria, approaching the courts with frivolous challenges to internal party processes may now carry serious and tangible financial consequences under the new electoral law.
The decision was delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/591/2026, between Fubara Dagogo as plaintiff and the All Progressives Congress and three others as defendants.
The plaintiff, Mr Fubara Dagogo, had approached the court to challenge the APC National Congress and the party’s nomination processes. However, Justice Abdulmalik struck out the suit, holding that the dispute arose purely from the internal congress and nomination processes of the political party and therefore fell outside the jurisdiction of the court by virtue of Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026.
The judge maintained that there was no allegation or proof of any breach of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or the party’s constitution and guidelines capable of warranting judicial intervention. In the absence of such a threshold showing, the court held that the matter was non-justiciable meaning it was not the type of dispute that the courts are empowered to adjudicate.
Going further than merely striking out the suit, Justice Abdulmalik proceeded to award punitive costs of N10 million against the plaintiff, Mr Fubara Dagogo, and a separate N10 million against his counsel, Chief Sir O.A.U. Onyema a total of N20 million in punitive costs for what the court considered a frivolous and non-justiciable action.
The imposition of costs against both the litigant and his lawyer is significant because it signals that the courts are prepared to hold not only plaintiffs but also their legal representatives personally accountable for bringing suits that the law regards as improperly instituted. This dual liability creates a powerful deterrent: lawyers who file pre-election suits without carefully evaluating their legal sustainability now risk personal financial exposure alongside their clients.
According to Ubani, SAN, the decision appears to be one of the earliest notable applications of the Electoral Act 2026 provisions specifically targeting needless interference in internal party affairs. The Electoral Act 2026, which replaced the earlier electoral legislation, appears to have reinforced the long-standing judicial doctrine limiting court interference in political party nominations by providing clearer statutory backing and introducing punitive implications for those who bring unmeritorious actions.
Section 83(5) of the Act, as applied in this case, expressly restricts court intervention in disputes arising from internal party congresses and nomination processes unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a clear breach of the Constitution, the Electoral Act itself, or the party’s own constitution and guidelines. Where a plaintiff fails to meet this threshold, the court may not only dismiss the suit but may also impose substantial costs as a consequence.
Ubani, SAN noted that the principle underlying the decision is not entirely novel. The locus classicus decisions in Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244 and Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310 firmly established that the nomination of candidates by political parties is primarily an internal affair beyond judicial scrutiny, except where statutory provisions are violated.
These Supreme Court authorities have stood for decades as the foundational principles governing the extent to which courts may intervene in party nomination processes. The Electoral Act 2026, however, appears to have strengthened this doctrine by codifying it in statute and attaching direct financial penalties to violations — moving beyond mere judicial dicta to enforceable legislative provisions.
The imposition of punitive costs against counsel for frivolous pre-election litigation also has judicial precedent. Nigerian courts have repeatedly awarded substantial costs to discourage abuse of court process and speculative political litigation, with several electoral cases involving major political parties seeing judges issue stern warnings against the misuse of judicial time through non-justiciable political disputes.
Ubani, SAN identified three areas of significance in the decision.
First, the ruling reinforces the settled principle that the internal affairs of political parties remain an area of limited judicial interference. Political parties are substantially masters of their domestic affairs, including how they conduct congresses, select candidates, and manage their nomination processes.
Second, the courts will only intervene where there is a clear allegation and credible proof of breach of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or validly adopted party regulations. A general complaint about the outcome of a congress or a nomination process, without specific allegations of constitutional or statutory violations, will not be sufficient to ground a court action.
Third, and most practically, counsel handling pre-election matters must now exercise greater caution in evaluating the legal sustainability of intended actions before approaching the court. The risk of personal financial liability — in this case, N10 million — should concentrate the minds of lawyers who may otherwise be tempted to file speculative suits on behalf of aggrieved aspirants hoping to use the courts to overturn internal party decisions.
Ubani, SAN issued a direct warning to the many aggrieved aspirants who are already preparing to approach the courts over alleged exclusion or failed nominations following the ongoing APC primary elections across the country.
“This latest decision should therefore serve as an important cautionary guide to prospective litigants and counsel alike that there may now be tangible consequences for suits the law regards as improperly instituted,” Ubani stated.
He noted that while Onuoha v. Okafor remains good law, the Electoral Act 2026 may have strengthened the doctrine with clearer statutory backing and possible punitive implications. Litigants and counsel who attempt to convert purely internal political disagreements into judicial contests “may increasingly face serious financial consequences,” the senior lawyer warned.
“A word, they say, is enough for the wise,” Ubani concluded.
Ubani indicated that he intends to follow developments in the matter closely, particularly whether the affected parties Fubara Dagogo and Chief Onyema will comply with the order on costs or seek appellate review of the decision.
The senior lawyer acknowledged that the appellate courts may yet provide further clarity on the proper scope and application of Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026 if the aggrieved party files an appeal. Until such appellate guidance is provided, Ubani counselled that “prudence demands careful legal evaluation before inviting judicial intervention in matters that may remain fundamentally political and internal to party administration.”
The decision takes on added significance in the context of the current primary season, where multiple controversies including leaked pre-selection lists in Adamawa State, disqualifications in Rivers State, violence in Ondo State, and allegations of imposition across several states are likely to generate a flood of court actions by aggrieved aspirants. Justice Abdulmalik’s ruling, and the punitive costs imposed under the Electoral Act 2026, may serve as a powerful deterrent against the wave of speculative litigation that has historically followed every primary election cycle in Nigeria.
In this article