An appraisal of Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 and Judicial Intervention in Party Affairs- Reflections on the APC Ondo State Congress Controversy
The regulation of political parties lies at the heart of constitutional democracy. Political parties are the vehicles through which democratic representation is organized, candidates are produced and governments are ultimately formed. However, a perennial tension exists between party autonomy and judicial oversight.
This tension has become more pronounced following the enactment of the *Electoral Act 2026,* particularly *Section 83(5),* which provides that no court in Nigeria shall entertain any suit pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party. The provision has reignited debates about the proper limits of judicial intervention in party administration.
The controversy surrounding the All Progressives Congress (APC) State Congress in Ondo State, where an injunction was reportedly obtained restraining the conduct of the congress yet the exercise proceeded notwithstanding the order, provides a useful context to examine the practical implications of the new provision.
This article examines the issue from both perspectives; those who support the restriction on judicial intervention and those who question its compatibility with constitutional principles and tenets while addressing key questions relating to what constitutes internal party affairs and when courts may properly intervene.
The question is:
*What Constitutes the Internal Affairs of a Political Party?*
Political parties are essentially voluntary associations governed by their constitutions, rules, and internal procedures. Traditionally, Nigerian Courts have treated certain matters as purely domestic issues of the party and recently by the provision of the new Electoral Act 2026, the jurisdiction of the Court on internal affairs of the court is ousted while the Commission is saddled with the responsibility of making enquiries/clarifications on party affairs that are done against the provision of the Constitution, guidelines or any other Act of the National Assembly..
The Supreme Court decision in a number of cases including *Onuoha v. Okafor* established the foundational principle that Courts should not interfere in the internal management of political parties, especially in matters concerning the selection of candidates.
Similarly, in *Dalhatu v. Turaki,* the Supreme Court reiterated that the choice of who a political party nominates for an election is primarily the prerogative of the party.
More recently, in Hon. Monday Iyore Osagie & Ors v. Victor Enoghama & Ors (2022) Legalpedia 95766 (SC), the Supreme Court explained that internal affairs cover leadership terms, officer roles, membership fights, and ways to elect executives, except where the Electoral Act gives courts power, like in candidate picks.
From these authorities, it can be said that the following matters are generally regarded as internal affairs of a political party:
*Election of party executives*
*Party congresses and conventions*
*Internal disciplinary proceedings*
*Membership disputes*
*Nomination processes and candidate selection*
*Interpretation of the party constitution*
These matters are typically seen as organizational decisions that fall within the autonomy and prerogative of the party.
The reasoning behind this doctrine is that Courts are not designed to manage political organizations, and undue judicial interference may undermine the freedom of association as enshrined in the Constitution, same which is guaranteed to political parties.
Following the above therefore, can it be said that Courts cannot intervene in party affairs.
*When Can Courts Intervene in Party Affairs?*
Despite the general rule of non-interference, Nigerian jurisprudence has developed certain exceptions. Courts may intervene where the dispute transcends mere internal management and involves legal rights protected by statute or the Constitution.
For example before the advent of the new Electoral Act 2026 in *Amaechi v. INEC,* the Supreme Court intervened in a dispute involving the substitution of a party candidate because the matter involved compliance with statutory provisions of the Electoral Act.
From judicial precedents before now, Courts may intervene in party affairs in the following instances:
*1. Where Statutory provisions of the Electoral Act are violated.*
*2. When Constitutional rights of a member are jeopardized.*
*3. The dispute relates to pre-election matters involving aspirants.*
*4. The issue concerns interpretation of electoral laws affecting democratic processes.*
Thus, the courts have historically balanced party autonomy with the need to ensure legality and fairness in the electoral process. With the introduction of Section 83(2), (3)and (5) of the Act and its combined reading giving it the literal interpretation, the courts’ jurisdiction is ousted.
*The Impact of Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026*
Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 introduces a much stronger legislative position by providing that Courts shall not entertain suits relating to the internal affairs of political parties.
The apparent purpose of this provision is to address a longstanding problem in Nigerian politics: the proliferation of intra-party litigation, which often leads to conflicting Court orders, disruption of party activities, and delays in the electoral process.
Supporters of the provision argue that it promotes party discipline, institutional stability, and democratic maturity while political parties contend that they should be allowed to resolve their internal disputes through internal mechanisms rather than through litigation.
Furthermore, constant judicial intervention has sometimes led to situations where Courts are effectively called upon to determine party leadership or dictate internal organizational decisions.
From this perspective, Section 83(5) is seen as a corrective legislative response designed to restore autonomy to political parties.
Now, the real question is:
*Can Courts Still Adjudicate on Party Affairs Despite Section 83(5)?*
While the Electoral Act 2026 attempts to restrict judicial intervention, an important constitutional question arises: can an ordinary statute completely oust the jurisdiction of the Courts?
The judicial powers of Nigerian Courts are derived from Section 6 of the Constitution, which vests courts with authority to determine disputes concerning civil rights and obligations.
The Supreme Court in *Adesanya v. President of Nigeria* emphasized that constitutional judicial powers cannot be lightly curtailed by legislation.
Consequently, it is likely that Courts will interpret Section 83(5) narrowly, ensuring that it does not prevent judicial review in circumstances where:
*statutory rights are violated,*
*constitutional rights are threatened, or*
*electoral laws are breached.*
In practical terms, Courts may continue to hear cases where disputes are framed as violations of statutory or constitutional provisions rather than purely internal party disagreements.
Thus, while Section 83(5) limits intervention, it may not completely eliminate judicial oversight.
The APC Ondo State Congress Controversy has provided a focal light on the subject of the iron fist legal framework.
The controversy surrounding the APC State Congress in Ondo State illustrates the practical challenges arising from these legal principles.
Reports indicate that certain members of the party obtained a Court injunction restraining the conduct of the state congress, yet the congress was allegedly conducted notwithstanding the subsisting order.
Two important issues arise from this development.
*First is the question of whether the Court had jurisdiction to issue the order in the first place, given the new provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.*
If the matter indeed concerned a purely internal party affair, proponents of Section 83(5) may argue that the court ought not to have entertained the action at all.
*The second issue concerns respect for the rule of law.*
Regardless of differing views about the correctness of a court order, it is a fundamental principle of constitutional democracy that Court orders must be obeyed until they are set aside by a competent court.
Failure to comply with Court orders risks undermining public confidence in the legal system and may create a dangerous precedent where parties selectively obey judicial decisions.
Thus, while political parties may legitimately argue for autonomy in managing their affairs, they must equally recognize that the rule of law requires obedience to lawful judicial directives.
*Balancing Party Autonomy and the Rule of Law*
The debate surrounding Section 83(5) ultimately reflects a broader question about the appropriate balance between party independence and judicial supervision.
On one hand, excessive litigation over internal party matters can weaken political institutions and disrupt democratic processes.
On the other hand, completely insulating political parties from judicial scrutiny could allow arbitrary decisions, abuse of internal procedures, and denial of members' rights.
*Conclusion*
Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 represents a significant legislative attempt to reduce judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties. While the provision reflects legitimate concerns about excessive intra-party litigation, it also raises important constitutional and practical questions.
The experience of the APC congress controversy in Ondo State highlights the delicate relationship between party autonomy, judicial authority, and the rule of law.
Ultimately, the stability of Nigeria’s democratic system depends on maintaining a careful balance: political parties must be allowed to manage their internal affairs, yet they must do so within the framework of legality, constitutionalism, and respect for judicial authority.
In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, neither party autonomy nor judicial power can operate in absolute terms. Both must function in harmony to preserve the integrity of the political and legal order.
In this vein, I humbly appeal to all stakeholders of our great party to sheathe the sword and embrace harmonious restoration cum amicable settlement of any perceived or known issues affecting our great party in Ondo State. I opine that there is no rift in the party save clash of interests which are born out of true democracy.
Joshua Sebiotimo Esq., LL.M, MIDR, Notary Public
Aspirant, Akoko South West Constituency 1
*An appraisal of Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 and Judicial Intervention in Party Affairs*
*Reflections on the APC Ondo State Congress Controversy*
The regulation of political parties lies at the heart of constitutional democracy. Political parties are the vehicles through which democratic representation is organized, candidates are produced and governments are ultimately formed. However, a perennial tension exists between party autonomy and judicial oversight.
This tension has become more pronounced following the enactment of the *Electoral Act 2026,* particularly *Section 83(5),* which provides that no court in Nigeria shall entertain any suit pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party. The provision has reignited debates about the proper limits of judicial intervention in party administration.
The controversy surrounding the All Progressives Congress (APC) State Congress in Ondo State, where an injunction was reportedly obtained restraining the conduct of the congress yet the exercise proceeded notwithstanding the order, provides a useful context to examine the practical implications of the new provision.
This article examines the issue from both perspectives; those who support the restriction on judicial intervention and those who question its compatibility with constitutional principles and tenets while addressing key questions relating to what constitutes internal party affairs and when courts may properly intervene.
The question is:
*What Constitutes the Internal Affairs of a Political Party?*
Political parties are essentially voluntary associations governed by their constitutions, rules, and internal procedures. Traditionally, Nigerian Courts have treated certain matters as purely domestic issues of the party and recently by the provision of the new Electoral Act 2026, the jurisdiction of the Court on internal affairs of the court is ousted while the Commission is saddled with the responsibility of making enquiries/clarifications on party affairs that are done against the provision of the Constitution, guidelines or any other Act of the National Assembly..
The Supreme Court decision in a number of cases including *Onuoha v. Okafor* established the foundational principle that Courts should not interfere in the internal management of political parties, especially in matters concerning the selection of candidates.
Similarly, in *Dalhatu v. Turaki,* the Supreme Court reiterated that the choice of who a political party nominates for an election is primarily the prerogative of the party.
More recently, in Hon. Monday Iyore Osagie & Ors v. Victor Enoghama & Ors (2022) Legalpedia 95766 (SC), the Supreme Court explained that internal affairs cover leadership terms, officer roles, membership fights, and ways to elect executives, except where the Electoral Act gives courts power, like in candidate picks.
From these authorities, it can be said that the following matters are generally regarded as internal affairs of a political party:
*Election of party executives*
*Party congresses and conventions*
*Internal disciplinary proceedings*
*Membership disputes*
*Nomination processes and candidate selection*
*Interpretation of the party constitution*
These matters are typically seen as organizational decisions that fall within the autonomy and prerogative of the party.
The reasoning behind this doctrine is that Courts are not designed to manage political organizations, and undue judicial interference may undermine the freedom of association as enshrined in the Constitution, same which is guaranteed to political parties.
Following the above therefore, can it be said that Courts cannot intervene in party affairs.
*When Can Courts Intervene in Party Affairs?*
Despite the general rule of non-interference, Nigerian jurisprudence has developed certain exceptions. Courts may intervene where the dispute transcends mere internal management and involves legal rights protected by statute or the Constitution.
For example before the advent of the new Electoral Act 2026 in *Amaechi v. INEC,* the Supreme Court intervened in a dispute involving the substitution of a party candidate because the matter involved compliance with statutory provisions of the Electoral Act.
From judicial precedents before now, Courts may intervene in party affairs in the following instances:
*1. Where Statutory provisions of the Electoral Act are violated.*
*2. When Constitutional rights of a member are jeopardized.*
*3. The dispute relates to pre-election matters involving aspirants.*
*4. The issue concerns interpretation of electoral laws affecting democratic processes.*
Thus, the courts have historically balanced party autonomy with the need to ensure legality and fairness in the electoral process. With the introduction of Section 83(2), (3)and (5) of the Act and its combined reading giving it the literal interpretation, the courts’ jurisdiction is ousted.
*The Impact of Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026*
Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 introduces a much stronger legislative position by providing that Courts shall not entertain suits relating to the internal affairs of political parties.
The apparent purpose of this provision is to address a longstanding problem in Nigerian politics: the proliferation of intra-party litigation, which often leads to conflicting Court orders, disruption of party activities, and delays in the electoral process.
Supporters of the provision argue that it promotes party discipline, institutional stability, and democratic maturity while political parties contend that they should be allowed to resolve their internal disputes through internal mechanisms rather than through litigation.
Furthermore, constant judicial intervention has sometimes led to situations where Courts are effectively called upon to determine party leadership or dictate internal organizational decisions.
From this perspective, Section 83(5) is seen as a corrective legislative response designed to restore autonomy to political parties.
Now, the real question is:
*Can Courts Still Adjudicate on Party Affairs Despite Section 83(5)?*
While the Electoral Act 2026 attempts to restrict judicial intervention, an important constitutional question arises: can an ordinary statute completely oust the jurisdiction of the Courts?
The judicial powers of Nigerian Courts are derived from Section 6 of the Constitution, which vests courts with authority to determine disputes concerning civil rights and obligations.
The Supreme Court in *Adesanya v. President of Nigeria* emphasized that constitutional judicial powers cannot be lightly curtailed by legislation.
Consequently, it is likely that Courts will interpret Section 83(5) narrowly, ensuring that it does not prevent judicial review in circumstances where:
*statutory rights are violated,*
*constitutional rights are threatened, or*
*electoral laws are breached.*
In practical terms, Courts may continue to hear cases where disputes are framed as violations of statutory or constitutional provisions rather than purely internal party disagreements.
Thus, while Section 83(5) limits intervention, it may not completely eliminate judicial oversight.
The APC Ondo State Congress Controversy has provided a focal light on the subject of the iron fist legal framework.
The controversy surrounding the APC State Congress in Ondo State illustrates the practical challenges arising from these legal principles.
Reports indicate that certain members of the party obtained a Court injunction restraining the conduct of the state congress, yet the congress was allegedly conducted notwithstanding the subsisting order.
Two important issues arise from this development.
*First is the question of whether the Court had jurisdiction to issue the order in the first place, given the new provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.*
If the matter indeed concerned a purely internal party affair, proponents of Section 83(5) may argue that the court ought not to have entertained the action at all.
*The second issue concerns respect for the rule of law.*
Regardless of differing views about the correctness of a court order, it is a fundamental principle of constitutional democracy that Court orders must be obeyed until they are set aside by a competent court.
Failure to comply with Court orders risks undermining public confidence in the legal system and may create a dangerous precedent where parties selectively obey judicial decisions.
Thus, while political parties may legitimately argue for autonomy in managing their affairs, they must equally recognize that the rule of law requires obedience to lawful judicial directives.
*Balancing Party Autonomy and the Rule of Law*
The debate surrounding Section 83(5) ultimately reflects a broader question about the appropriate balance between party independence and judicial supervision.
On one hand, excessive litigation over internal party matters can weaken political institutions and disrupt democratic processes.
On the other hand, completely insulating political parties from judicial scrutiny could allow arbitrary decisions, abuse of internal procedures, and denial of members' rights.
*Conclusion*
Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026 represents a significant legislative attempt to reduce judicial interference in the internal affairs of political parties. While the provision reflects legitimate concerns about excessive intra-party litigation, it also raises important constitutional and practical questions.
The experience of the APC congress controversy in Ondo State highlights the delicate relationship between party autonomy, judicial authority, and the rule of law.
Ultimately, the stability of Nigeria’s democratic system depends on maintaining a careful balance: political parties must be allowed to manage their internal affairs, yet they must do so within the framework of legality, constitutionalism, and respect for judicial authority.
In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, neither party autonomy nor judicial power can operate in absolute terms. Both must function in harmony to preserve the integrity of the political and legal order.
In this vein, I humbly appeal to all stakeholders of our great party to sheathe the sword and embrace harmonious restoration cum amicable settlement of any perceived or known issues affecting our great party in Ondo State. I opine that there is no rift in the party save clash of interests which are born out of true democracy.
Joshua Sebiotimo Esq., LL.M, MIDR, Notary Public
Aspirant, Akoko South West Constituency 1
Comments
Post a Comment