By Sylvester Udemezue
(1). *INTRODUCTION
A recent report published by The Nigeria Lawyer attributed to a distinguished Senior Advocate of Nigeria, *Chief Adeniyi Akintola, SAN,* the view that courts ought not to entertain disputes relating to the internal affairs of political parties. According to the report, the learned Silk was quoted as suggesting that judges who assume jurisdiction over such matters should face disciplinary action, and that the National Judicial Council (NJC) should “wield the big stick” against them. The position appears to be predicated on the belief that internal political disputes should be resolved within the political arena rather than through judicial processes. The report further suggests that political actors, particularly within the opposition, sometimes resort to litigation and media engagement instead of developing internal mechanisms to address their political disagreements and organisational challenges.
While this perspective reflects an important concern about the autonomy of political parties and the proper limits of judicial intervention in political questions, it raises significant constitutional and jurisprudential issues regarding the role of courts in safeguarding the rule of law where disputes arise within political parties. It is against this background that the present rejoinder respectfully seeks to clarify the circumstances under which courts may properly intervene in the internal affairs of political parties within Nigeria’s constitutional and statutory framework.
(2). *THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERFERENCE IN INTERNAL PARTY AFFAIRS*
It is well settled that courts generally refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of political parties. Political parties are regarded as voluntary associations that regulate their internal management through their constitutions, rules, and procedures. Matters relating purely to internal political strategy, political negotiations, alliances, or decisions about whom a party may politically prefer are ordinarily considered non-justiciable political questions. Consequently, courts have consistently maintained that they will not run the affairs of political parties or substitute their own decisions for those of party organs. However, this principle of judicial restraint is not absolute. Where legal rights created by the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or the constitution and rules of a political party are alleged to have been violated, courts may exercise jurisdiction in order to interpret the law, protect legal rights, and ensure compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements.
(3). *Situations Where Courts May Intervene*
Judicial intervention in internal party matters may arise in limited and clearly defined circumstances recognised under Nigerian constitutional and electoral law.
(i). Pre-Election Matters: Courts may intervene where the dispute qualifies as a pre-election matter under Section 285(14)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. A dispute becomes a pre-election matter where it relates to the nomination of candidates by a political party, the conduct of party primaries, or the qualification or disqualification of a candidate. In such circumstances, an aspirant who participated in the primary election may approach the court to challenge the process where it is alleged that the party acted in violation of the law or its own guidelines. Also, the Electoral Act 2022 allows an aspirant who participated in a primary election to challenge the process where it contravenes the provisions of the Act or the party guidelines.
(ii). *Breach of the Party Constitution or Rules:* Although political parties are autonomous bodies, they are nevertheless bound by their own constitutions and internal regulations. Where a party acts outside its constitution or breaches its own rules and guidelines in a manner that affects the legal rights of its members or aspirants, courts may intervene to enforce compliance with those governing rules.
(iii). *Violation of Fundamental Rights:* Judicial intervention may also arise where the internal actions of a political party result in the violation of constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to fair hearing or other legally enforceable rights recognised under the Constitution.
(iv). *Fraud, Illegality, or Breach of Law:* Courts may intervene where party officials act fraudulently, where there is manifest illegality, or where internal party processes violate statutory provisions. Internal party autonomy cannot serve as a shield for unlawful conduct.
(v). *Matters Affecting the Electoral Process:* Where internal party decisions have consequences for the electoral process regulated by law, such disputes may transcend purely domestic party matters and become issues of legal significance warranting judicial determination. Examples include disputes arising from the conduct of party primaries, the nomination of candidates, or the submission of candidates to INEC.
(3). *THE COURTS DO NOT MANAGE POLITICAL PARTIES*
Despite these recognised exceptions, Nigerian courts have consistently emphasised that they do not manage political parties. Courts do not determine who a party should politically adopt, nor do they decide internal political negotiations, alliances, or strategies. Such matters remain within the exclusive domain of party organs. Judicial intervention occurs only where the dispute raises issues of legal rights, statutory compliance, or constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle in *Ishaku v. Audi & Ors*(2026), where the Court clarified that although courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of political parties, judicial intervention may be justified where the dispute transcends domestic party management and involves legal rights arising from party primaries or statutory compliance. [See: *”FCT poll: Supreme Court affirms Joshua Ishaku as APC candidate”* (Punch; 17 February 2026)]. While emphasizing that the dispute transcended internal party matters, as it involved an infraction of constitutional rights, the Electoral Act, and the party’s guidelines, the apex court said that each case must be analysed based on its peculiar facts. This reinforces the established judicial position that while courts generally respect the autonomy of political parties, they may intervene where disputes involve legally enforceable rights or statutory compliance.
(4). *CONCLUSION*
Against this legal background, the suggestion that courts should never entertain disputes relating to internal party affairs, or that judges who do so should face disciplinary sanctions, may not fully reflect the nuanced position of Nigerian constitutional law. The correct principle, with respect, is that courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of political parties. However, where disputes involve violations of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or legally enforceable rights created by party rules, courts retain jurisdiction to ensure that the rule of law prevails. A political party, with the greatest respect, is not a law unto itself. Like all institutions operating within the Nigerian constitutional order, it remains subject to the supremacy of the Constitution, the authority of statutory law, and compliance with its own governing rules. Judicial intervention in such circumstances therefore does not amount to running the affairs of political parties; rather, it represents an essential mechanism for preserving legality, protecting rights, and upholding the rule of law within the democratic process.
(Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
08021365545.
udems@therealityministry.ngo.)
