There is a recurring ritual in Nigerian politics: lose a party argument today, discover constitutional morality tomorrow, and arrive in court the next morning armed with an ex parte application and righteous indignation. It is in this theatre that the recent interventions by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) must be understood—and critically examined.
The NBA’s statements, especially in light of evolving political manoeuvres ahead of 2027, raise a fundamental question: who should regulate the internal affairs of political parties—the courts, the electoral umpire, or the parties themselves?
The NBA’s Position: Shut the Courtroom Door
The NBA’s argument is emphatic and legally anchored in Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026:
- Courts lack jurisdiction over internal party affairs
- Interim and interlocutory injunctions in such matters are prohibited
- Lawyers filing such cases are engaging in abuse of process
- Judges granting such orders risk disciplinary action via the National Judicial Council
In its latest escalation, the NBA goes further:
- It calls for sanctions against errant judges
- It warns lawyers against becoming “architects of procedural manipulation”
- It urges the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to act with independence and neutrality
At face value, this is a defence of legal order, judicial restraint, and democratic integrity.
But Nigerian law—and Nigerian politics—rarely operate at face value.
The Constitutional Complication the NBA Cannot Wish Away
The NBA’s position rests on a clean proposition: where statute removes jurisdiction, courts must comply.
That proposition is only partially correct.
Under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria:
- Judicial powers are constitutionally vested
- Access to court is fundamental
- Statutes cannot completely extinguish judicial review where legal rights are implicated
This creates a tension that no amount of press statements can resolve:
Can Section 83 validly bar courts even where a political party breaches statutory requirements or violates the rights of its members?
Historically, the answer has been: not absolutely.
The Myth of “Internal Affairs”
The NBA treats intra-party matters as if they exist in a sealed constitutional container. They do not.
Modern electoral law has transformed party processes into regulated legal activities:
- Party primaries are governed by statute
- Party constitutions are filed with INEC and become legally relevant
- Candidate selection affects public electoral rights, not just private interests
Once a party:
- Violates its own rules
- Conducts sham primaries
- Excludes candidates unlawfully
The issue ceases to be “internal” and becomes justiciable.
Section 83 attempts to reverse that reality. The NBA is defending that attempt. The courts are grappling with its limits.
Courts: Overreaching or Filling a Vacuum?
The NBA is right to criticise:
- Forum shopping
- Tactical litigation
- Abuse of ex parte orders
These practices have turned some courtrooms into extensions of party secretariats with better furniture.
But this critique ignores a prior failure:
Why are political actors going to court in the first place?
Because:
- Political parties routinely disregard their own constitutions
- Internal dispute mechanisms are ineffective or captured
- INEC often observes violations without decisive enforcement
The judiciary is not operating in a vacuum—it is operating in a regulatory void.
INEC: The Reluctant Referee
To its credit, the NBA’s updated statement finally confronts the role of INEC.
INEC is not meant to be a passive observer. It is statutorily empowered to:
- Monitor primaries
- Enforce compliance
- Reject flawed processes
- Regulate party conduct
Yet, in practice, INEC often behaves like:
An anxious referee who blows the whistle, writes a report, and waits for VAR—which, in Nigeria, is the judiciary.
If INEC exercised its powers robustly:
- Many disputes would die before reaching court
- Lawyers would have fewer incentives for procedural gymnastics
- Section 83 would function as intended
INEC is not peripheral to this debate.
It is central to solving it.
The NJC Question: Discipline or Deterrence?
The NBA’s call for the National Judicial Council to sanction judges raises a delicate issue.
Judicial discipline is appropriate where there is:
- Corruption
- Bad faith
- Abuse of office
But assuming jurisdiction—however controversially—is usually a matter for appeal, not punishment.
If every disputed interpretation becomes grounds for discipline:
- Judges may prioritise safety over correctness
- Judicial independence may erode quietly
- Constitutional interpretation may be outsourced to institutional pressure
That is a cure with its own pathology.
Lawyers: Necessary Warning, Incomplete Diagnosis
The NBA is entirely justified in warning lawyers:
- Against forum shopping
- Against abusing ex parte procedures
- Against weaponising litigation for political ends
But lawyers do not create the system—they exploit it.
They operate within incentives shaped by:
- Weak party governance
- Regulatory hesitation
- Judicial openness
Fix those incentives, and legal opportunism declines. Ignore them, and it evolves.
The Real Risk: From Judicial Overreach to Party Impunity
If Section 83 is enforced in the absolutist manner the NBA suggests:
- Party elites may operate without accountability
- Aggrieved members may have no effective remedy
- Internal democracy may become a ceremonial concept
In effect, political parties risk becoming:
Private empires performing public constitutional functions without legal oversight
That is not democratic order. That is structured impunity.
Toward a Functional Balance
A sustainable institutional arrangement requires alignment, not confrontation:
Courts
- Exercise disciplined restraint
- Reject frivolous or tactical disputes
- Intervene only where clear legal rights or statutory breaches exist
INEC
- Enforce rules at the source, not after litigation
- Act decisively on flawed primaries
- Reclaim its role as primary regulator
NBA
- Discipline abusive legal practice
- Distinguish between:
- Frivolous litigation
- Legitimate constitutional challenges
NJC
- Sanction clear misconduct
- Avoid turning jurisdictional interpretation into a disciplinary battlefield
Final Thought: Democracy or Litigation Management?
The NBA is defending the letter of the law.
The courts are responding to the failure of political institutions.
INEC sits in the middle—holding the rulebook, but not always enforcing it.
The unresolved contradiction remains:
Political parties are treated as private associations, yet they perform public democratic functions.
Until that contradiction is addressed, Nigeria will continue its peculiar experiment:
- Elections conducted by INEC
- Candidates produced by parties
- Outcomes clarified—sometimes decided—by courts
And in that system, the most important political office is not always on the ballot.
Sometimes, it is simply the judge on duty that week.
Centre for Nigeria Progress 