By Our Correspondent
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Monday Onyekachi Ubani, has faulted recent claims suggesting that Nigerian courts have been effectively barred from intervening in the internal affairs of political parties under Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026.
Ubani’s position comes in response to remarks by legal practitioner Festus Okoye, who reportedly argued that lawyers are increasingly being made scapegoats in intra-party disputes due to their reliance on litigation.
In a detailed legal analysis, Ubani described as “overstretched and constitutionally unsustainable” the interpretation that Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act completely removes the jurisdiction of courts over party-related disputes. He maintained that while the provision may appear, on the surface, to shield political parties from judicial scrutiny, such a reading ignores the supremacy of the Constitution.
Citing Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Ubani emphasized that courts retain inherent powers to adjudicate on matters concerning civil rights and obligations. He further referenced Section 1(3) of the Constitution, noting that any law inconsistent with constitutional provisions is null and void.
The senior lawyer pointed to established judicial precedents, including the landmark case of Lakanmi v Attorney-General (Western State), as well as AG Federation v Abubakar and Abaribe v Speaker, Abia State House of Assembly, to argue that Nigerian courts have consistently resisted attempts to limit their jurisdiction through legislative provisions.
Ubani acknowledged that courts traditionally exercise caution in interfering with party matters, referencing Okafor v Onuoha, but stressed that such restraint is not absolute. According to him, judicial intervention becomes necessary where disputes involve violations of statutory provisions, party constitutions, or constitutional rights.
He warned that any attempt to elevate political parties above judicial oversight could create a constitutional conflict and deny aggrieved party members access to justice. “Where there is a right, there must be a remedy,” he stated, invoking a foundational legal principle.
Ubani also expressed concern over the punitive aspects of Section 83, which appear to target legal practitioners who institute actions in court. He questioned how lawyers are expected to determine the merit of cases in advance and warned against penalizing legal professionals for seeking judicial redress.
While acknowledging instances of abuse such as forum shopping and conflicting court orders, Ubani argued that sanctions should only apply in clear cases of frivolous litigation, insisting that “two wrongs cannot make a right.”
He concluded that Section 83 of the Electoral Act cannot override constitutional provisions or extinguish judicial authority. According to him, “so long as the Constitution endures, judicial power remains intact.”
Ubani called for continued legal discourse on the issue, inviting contributions from other stakeholders to further examine what he described as a critical constitutional question.
