By Okoi Obono-Obla
Undoubtedly, the Electoral Act 2026 has introduced far‑reaching innovations and fundamental changes to Nigeria’s electoral system. These reforms are designed to inspire greater order and discipline in a trajectory that has often been chequered, exploited by politicians, and marked by uncertainty and turmoil.
One such innovation is Section 83 (1) of the Act, which provides that, subject to subsection (3), no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party. In other words, the Act has effectively curtailed the tendency of politicians to flood the courts with disputes concerning party affairs—cases that previously clogged already busy dockets, distracted judges, and exposed them to political controversies and scandals arising from the ruthless tactics of politicians against their opponents.
Mindful of the persistence of politicians, the legislature ingeniously anticipated that Section 83 (1) might not fully deter them from approaching the courts. Thus, Section 83 (6)(a)(b) introduces a caveat:
– Where such an action is brought in violation of Section 83 (1), no interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained. The Court must suspend its ruling until final judgment, while granting accelerated hearing.
– At the conclusion of the matter, the Court shall impose costs of not less than ₦10,000,000.00 on both the counsel who filed the action and the Plaintiff/Applicant, in addition to any costs (including solicitors’ fees) incurred by the Commission if joined as a party.
In essence, a litigant who disregards Section 83 (1) by taking internal party disputes to court cannot obtain interim reliefs until final judgment. Furthermore, Section 83 (6) prescribes heavy sanctions to discourage such recalcitrance.
Although the Act does not define “internal affairs of a political party,” Nigerian courts have clarified that these include private, administrative, and organizational matters managed independently by parties—such as leadership selection, membership management, candidate nomination, and executive appointments. Generally, these matters are non‑justiciable, except where compliance with a party’s constitution or the Electoral Act is at stake.
Examples of internal affairs include:
– Party primaries and candidate nominations (unless guidelines are violated).
– Selection of party executives at national, state, local government, and ward levels.
– Factional disputes or misconduct allegations within the party.
– Constitutional adherence, such as organizing conventions or following party rules.
While ousting court jurisdiction over internal party affairs is commendable, it must not be seen as a license for parties to continue their often cavalier approach to fairness and justice. Political parties should not trample on members’ rights or handle disputes with levity. Instead, this reform presents an opportunity for parties to overhaul and strengthen their internal conflict resolution mechanisms. They should establish directorates vested with real powers to address internal matters with the seriousness they deserve.
Conclusion:
The Electoral Act 2026 marks a decisive step toward reducing judicial entanglement in partisan disputes. However, its success depends on political parties embracing responsibility, fairness, and transparency in managing their internal affairs. Only then can the Act achieve its intended purpose of fostering discipline and stability in Nigeria’s democratic process.
Leave a comment