The Pathfinder
Sunday April 12, 2026
Please, share this story:
Nigeria’s judiciary is facing mounting criticism from senior legal figures over what they describe as a troubling pattern of interference in the internal affairs of political parties, in apparent violation of the Electoral Act 2026.
The backlash follows a series of controversial court rulings linked to leadership disputes within major opposition parties, including the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and the Labour Party (LP).
Of grave concern is the fact that many judicial officers, allegedly compromised by corruption, have become willing tools in the hands of politicians, carrying out their bidding.
The incessant interference of the courts in the internal affairs of political parties—such as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP)—has weakened once formidable political institutions, leaving them mired in protracted and unresolved crises.
Legal experts argue that such judicial actions contradict Section 83 of the Electoral Act, which explicitly bars courts from entertaining cases strictly related to the internal affairs of political parties.
The Nigerian Bar Association, in a statement signed by its President, Afam Osigwe, warned that continued judicial involvement in intra-party disputes could undermine democracy and erode public trust in the courts.
“These developments raise serious constitutional, democratic, and rule-of-law concerns that require immediate attention,” the NBA stated, condemning what it described as the “disturbing involvement” of both lawyers and judges in matters clearly outside judicial jurisdiction.
Retired Justice Raises Alarm
A retired Justice of the Court of Appeal, who spoke anonymously, described the trend as a direct breach of the law and a threat to democratic stability.
“The Electoral Act is clear—courts have no business interfering in internal party matters such as leadership tussles, congresses, or candidate selection,” he said.
He warned that the growing tendency of courts to assume jurisdiction in such cases amounts to “judicial overreach” and could ultimately damage the credibility of the judiciary.
The former jurist also decried the increasing frequency of conflicting court orders, noting that such contradictions fuel confusion, encourage forum shopping, and weaken the rule of law.
“When courts become battlegrounds for political actors seeking favourable judgments, democracy is in danger,” he added.
SANs Back NBA, Call for Restraint
Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Olu Daramola, aligned with the NBA’s position, stressing that the principle of non-interference in party affairs has long been upheld by the Supreme Court.
“If democracy must survive, courts and lawyers must respect clear legal boundaries,” he said, adding that jurisdiction is fundamental and must be established before any case is entertained.
Daramola further warned that Nigeria’s democracy remains fragile and depends on a strong opposition to thrive.
“The death of opposition is the death of democracy,” he cautioned, urging institutions like the Independent National Electoral Commission to act responsibly.
He also referenced the political fallout of the 1983 Nigerian general elections, noting that judicial validation of electoral victories does not necessarily guarantee political stability.
Concerns Over ‘Status Quo’ Orders
Another SAN, Olalekan Ojo, criticised courts for issuing vague orders, particularly those directing parties to maintain the “status quo,” which he said often leads to conflicting interpretations and abuse.
“Judges must clearly define what they mean by ‘status quo’ to avoid confusion,” he said, warning against judicial actions that effectively place courts in charge of party affairs.
Similarly, Wahab Shittu, stressed that judicial restraint is essential to preserving the rule of law.
“Courts are not platforms for resolving political strategies or intra-party conflicts,” he said, adding that acting outside jurisdiction undermines judicial credibility.
Legal Perspective: When Courts Can Intervene
Human rights lawyer Taofiq Olateju provided a broader legal context, explaining that while courts traditionally avoided party matters, certain Supreme Court decisions—such as Amaechi v. INEC—created limited exceptions.
According to him, courts may intervene where there are clear violations of statutory provisions or fundamental rights.
He also highlighted the supremacy of the Constitution over other laws, noting that any inconsistency renders conflicting provisions void.
Forum Shopping and Systemic Concerns
Olateju described “forum shopping”—where litigants seek favourable courts—as unethical and damaging to judicial integrity, even if not outright illegal.
Although the National Judicial Council has introduced measures to curb the practice, he noted that the problem persists, especially in politically sensitive cases.
Growing Anxiety Over Democracy
As legal voices intensify their warnings, concerns are rising that continued judicial interference in political party affairs could weaken opposition parties, distort democratic processes, and erode public confidence in Nigeria’s justice system.
Stakeholders are now calling for urgent reforms and stricter adherence to constitutional limits to safeguard the country’s fragile democracy.
—————————————-
Share your story or advertise with us:
08033783144 (WhatsApp)
08023469999(WhatsApp)
idowuadelusi@gmail.com,thepathfindernews0@gmail.com
Follow our reports also on X @idowuadelusi and Facebook (Idowu Oluwole Adelusi)
Instagram: https//www.instagram.com/idowuoluwoleadelusi