There is a peculiar Nigerian pastime: when politicians lose an argument in a party meeting, they immediately develop an intense, almost romantic attachment to the judiciary. Suddenly, men who cannot tolerate a ward congress without throwing chairs become apostles of constitutionalism—filing suits faster than INEC can misplace a document.
This raises a serious question dressed in comic clothing: what exactly is the role of the judiciary in the internal administration of political parties? And while we are at it, where does Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) stand—referee, spectator, or reluctant accomplice?
Let’s strip this down to law, practice, and Nigeria’s unique ability to turn both into interpretive dance.
1. Political Parties: Private Clubs with Public Consequences
At their core, political parties are voluntary associations. In theory, they are governed by:
Their constitutions Internal rules and procedures Party organs (NEC, conventions, caucuses, etc.)
Courts across jurisdictions—including Nigeria—have historically taken the position that they should not interfere in the domestic affairs of political parties. The reasoning is straightforward: if you join a club, you abide by its rules. If you don’t like the rules, you leave—or fight internally, preferably without police escorts.
However, Nigerian politics does not do “internal resolution.” It does “ex parte orders.”
2. The Judiciary: From Reluctant Arbiter to Frequent Participant
Under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, courts derive their authority to adjudicate disputes, including those involving political parties. But this power is not unlimited.
The Established Legal Position
The Nigerian Supreme Court has repeatedly held:
Courts will not interfere in purely internal party matters Except where: There is a breach of statute (e.g., Electoral Act) There is a violation of the Constitution A party fails to follow its own rules in a way that affects legal rights
In cases like Onuoha v. Okafor and Dalhatu v. Turaki, the courts tried to draw a bright line: candidate selection is an internal affair.
Then reality happened.
3. The Elastic Exception: When “Internal” Becomes “Justiciable”
With the evolution of Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence—especially under the Electoral Act 2022—courts have increasingly intervened in party matters.
Why?
Because the law now requires:
Democratic primaries Compliance with party constitutions Transparency in candidate selection
Once a party violates these statutory requirements, the matter stops being “internal” and becomes justiciable.
In practice, this has led to:
Courts determining who the “authentic” party candidate is Courts nullifying primaries Courts effectively deciding party leadership disputes
At this point, one might reasonably ask: is the judiciary supervising democracy, or substituting itself for party structures?
4. Enter INEC: Referee, Record Keeper, or Bystander?
The Independent National Electoral Commission is constitutionally empowered under the Nigerian Constitution and statute to regulate political parties.
INEC’s Statutory Functions Include:
Registration and deregistration of parties Monitoring party primaries Ensuring compliance with the Electoral Act Receiving party constitutions and amendments Observing congresses and conventions
In theory, INEC is the rules keeper.
In practice? It often behaves like a notary public with anxiety.
5. The Compliance Framework That Nobody Respects
Political parties are required to:
Submit their constitutions to INEC Notify INEC of congresses, conventions, and primaries Conduct transparent and democratic processes
INEC, in turn, is supposed to:
Monitor these processes Ensure compliance Sanction violations
But enforcement has been… diplomatic.
Instead of disqualifying errant parties or rejecting flawed primaries outright, INEC often:
Observes irregularities Writes reports Waits for aggrieved politicians to go to court
This has effectively outsourced enforcement to the judiciary.
6. Judicialisation of Politics: Cause and Consequence
Because INEC hesitates to act decisively, politicians:
Ignore party rules Conduct questionable primaries Run to court when disputes arise
The judiciary, faced with statutory breaches, steps in.
Result:
Courts become de facto party managers Judges interpret party constitutions more than party members do Political legitimacy becomes a matter of court orders
At this stage, one might conclude that Nigerian democracy runs on three arms of government:
Executive Legislature Ex parte injunctions
7. Has INEC Abrogated Its Role?
This is the uncomfortable question.
Legally, INEC has not surrendered its powers.
Practically, it has often exercised them with caution bordering on inertia.
Possible reasons include:
Political pressure from ruling parties Fear of being accused of partisanship Institutional conservatism Litigation risk
But the consequence is clear: a regulatory vacuum filled by the courts.
8. Historical Performance: Registration and Deregistration
INEC has shown more decisiveness in:
Registering political parties Deregistering non-performing ones
For example, following constitutional amendments, INEC deregistered dozens of parties that failed to meet electoral thresholds.
This demonstrates that INEC can act decisively—just not always when it comes to internal party compliance.
9. Where Should the Line Be Drawn?
A coherent legal and institutional position would look like this:
Courts:
Intervene only where there is: Clear statutory violation Constitutional breach Denial of legal rights
INEC:
Enforce compliance proactively Refuse to recognise flawed primaries Sanction parties that violate their own rules
Political Parties:
Act like institutions, not temporary alliances of ambition
10. Final Thought: Democracy or Litigation Industry?
Nigeria’s current model risks turning democracy into:
A system where elections are conducted by INEC, but decided by the courts.
That is neither sustainable nor desirable.
If political parties cannot manage their internal affairs, and INEC will not enforce the rules, the judiciary will inevitably step in. But courts are designed to interpret law—not to run political organisations.
Until each institution stays within its proper ambit, Nigeria will continue its unique experiment in judicially supervised party politics, where the most important political office is not party chairman or candidate—but the judge on duty that week.
And in that system, the real primaries don’t happen in party secretariats.
They happen in courtrooms.
Centre for Nigeria Progress 