By Okoi Obono-Obla
A recent social media post suggested that the provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 would defeat the case of Nafiu Bala Gombe v. African Democratic Congress (ADC), Senator David Mark & Others currently before the Federal High Court, Abuja. This assertion is misleading.
The Electoral Act 2026, which bars courts from entertaining disputes involving the internal affairs of political parties—such as leadership selection, membership management, candidate nomination, and executive appointments—came into force in February 2026. Therefore, it cannot retroactively apply to ongoing litigation like Nafiu Bala Gombe’s case, which was filed under the Electoral Act 2022.
The settled principle of law is that the law applicable to a cause of action is the law in force at the time the cause of action arose. In Afolabi v. Governor of Osun State (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 835) 672, the Supreme Court held that rights of parties are determined by the law existing when the cause of action accrued. Similarly, in Adesanoye v. Adewole (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 242, the Court emphasized that subsequent legislation cannot retroactively extinguish vested rights. Thus, Nafiu Bala Gombe’s case is governed by the 2022 Act.
Even assuming, without conceding, that the 2026 Act applies, Section 83 does not entirely oust the jurisdiction of courts.
Section 83 (1) provides that no court shall entertain suits relating to the internal affairs of political parties.
Section 83 (6), however, anticipates violations and prescribes consequences:
– No interim or interlocutory injunction shall be granted; rulings must await final judgment.
– Courts must impose stiff penalties—no less than ₦10,000,000 each on both counsel and plaintiff, plus costs payable to the Electoral Commission if joined.
This structure shows that while the legislature discourages judicial interference in party affairs, it does not completely bar courts from hearing such matters. Instead, it creates disincentives to reduce frivolous suits.
Nigerian courts have consistently defined “internal affairs” of political parties to include candidate nominations, executive appointments, and membership disputes. In Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244, the Supreme Court held that nomination of candidates is an internal matter of political parties, not justiciable unless statutory provisions are breached. Likewise, in Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310, the Court reiterated that internal party decisions are generally beyond judicial review, except where they contravene the Electoral Act or party constitution.
Conclusion:
The Electoral Act 2026 is forward‑looking and cannot retroactively defeat cases filed under the 2022 Act. Even if applicable, Section 83 does not create an absolute bar but rather imposes sanctions to deter frivolous litigation. The case of Nafiu Bala Gombe remains governed by the 2022 Act, and the courts retain jurisdiction to determine it.
Leave a comment