Section 83 and the Limits of Judicial Non-Interference in Party Politics — Ubani SAN

Section 83 and the Limits of Judicial Non-Interference in Party Politics — Ubani SAN

Legal Practitioner and Policy Analyst, M.O. Ubani, has called for a constitutional re-examination of Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026, warning against interpretations that suggest the judiciary has been completely excluded from adjudicating disputes arising from the internal affairs of political parties.

Reacting to recent comments credited to Festus Okoye regarding the increasing involvement of lawyers in political party disputes, Ubani argued that the view that Section 83 absolutely ousts the jurisdiction of the courts is “overstretched and constitutionally unsustainable.”

According to him, while Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act may appear, on a literal reading, to bar courts from entertaining disputes relating to party internal matters, such interpretation cannot override the constitutional powers vested in the judiciary under Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

He maintained that the Constitution grants courts inherent authority to determine questions relating to civil rights and obligations, stressing that no Act of the National Assembly can lawfully diminish or extinguish such powers.

Ubani cited several judicial authorities, including Lakanmi v. Attorney General (Western State), Attorney General of the Federation v. Abubakar, and Abaribe v. Speaker, Abia State House of Assembly, noting that Nigerian courts have historically resisted attempts to oust their jurisdiction through statutory provisions.

He further explained that although courts traditionally exercise restraint in matters considered purely internal to political parties, such restraint is not absolute.

“The moment a dispute transcends internal management issues and touches on legal rights, statutory compliance, or constitutional guarantees, the jurisdiction of the court becomes activated,” he stated.

Ubani warned that interpreting Section 83 as granting political parties absolute immunity from judicial scrutiny could create dangerous consequences, including leaving aggrieved party members without remedies in cases involving exclusion, manipulation of primaries, or other forms of illegality.

He reiterated the enduring legal principle of ubi jus ibi remedium — where there is a right, there is a remedy — describing it as a cornerstone of Nigeria’s legal system.

The Senior Advocate also raised concerns over provisions of the law that appear to impose sanctions on lawyers and litigants for approaching the courts in political disputes, questioning the standards for determining what constitutes an “appropriate” case.

“It would be deeply troubling if legal practitioners were penalised merely for seeking judicial redress on behalf of clients in matters involving political parties,” he said.

While acknowledging the existence of abuses such as forum shopping and conflicting ex parte orders, Ubani noted that reforms aimed at discouraging frivolous litigation must not come at the expense of constitutional guarantees and judicial independence.

He concluded that Section 83 of the Electoral Act cannot silence the judiciary so long as the Constitution remains supreme.

“Any interpretation suggesting that the courts have been stripped of their constitutional authority is legally flawed and risks undermining the very foundation of the rule of law,” he stated.

Ubani welcomed further legal and constitutional debate on the issue, describing it as an important national conversation concerning democracy, judicial powers, and the rule of law.

Signed:

M.O. Ubani, SAN

Legal Practitioner & Policy Analyst