By
Dr. Kayode Omolayo, CIArb (UK)
Legal Practitioner & Chartered Arbitrator
Fairway Attorneys at Law
fairwaylawfirm@gmail.com
18th May 2026
As all major political parties commence their primaries for the 2027 general elections using the direct primaries method, numerous grievances are already pouring in from aspirants and party members across the country. Serious allegations of irregularities, including wrongful vote counting, manipulation of results, non-compliance with the Electoral Act, and breaches of party guidelines, are being reported. These issues highlight the critical importance of transparent and accountable primary processes. However, a major constitutional obstacle stands in the way of judicial redress: the deeply flawed and unconstitutional ouster clause in Section 83(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2026.
Section 83(5) boldly declares:
> “Subject to the provision of subsection (3), no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.”
Subsection (6) compounds the injury by imposing punitive measures: a ban on interim or interlocutory injunctions, mandatory accelerated hearing with judgment reserved to the final stage, and a minimum award of ₦10,000,000.00 costs each against the lawyer filing the suit and the aggrieved plaintiff/applicant.
This provision is not merely regulatory overreach — it is a direct assault on the foundational principles of constitutional democracy in Nigeria.
The 1999 Constitution (as amended) remains the supreme law of the land. Section 1(3) voids any law inconsistent with it. More pointedly, Section 4(8) explicitly prohibits the National Assembly from enacting any legislation that ousts or purports to oust the jurisdiction of the courts. The section states in clear terms that the exercise of legislative powers shall be subject to judicial oversight, and the legislature “shall not enact any law that ousts or purports to oust” such jurisdiction.
By inserting this blanket ouster, the National Assembly has acted ultra vires its powers. It has also undermined Section 6 of the Constitution, which vests judicial powers in the courts to interpret laws and resolve disputes, and Section 36, which guarantees the right to fair hearing and access to justice. The punitive ₦10 million costs regime further chills the right of access to court, particularly for aspirants who may have been short-changed through alleged wrongful vote counting and other irregularities in direct primaries.
Nigerian jurisprudence has consistently resisted such ouster clauses. In the landmark case of Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007), the Supreme Court affirmed its jurisdiction to review compliance with procedural requirements despite an ouster clause. Similarly, Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 42 established that courts can intervene in party candidate selection processes to enforce compliance with the Electoral Act and party guidelines. “Internal affairs” cannot become a cloak for illegality. Even the older decision in Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) has been considerably narrowed by later authorities, especially where statutory violations, fundamental rights, or manipulation of electoral processes are involved.
While Section 88 of the same Electoral Act attempts to provide limited redress for aspirants alleging non-compliance, the broad and ambiguous ouster in Section 83 creates dangerous uncertainty and largely neutralises this window. The result is a legal framework that encourages impunity at a time when credible, transparent direct primaries — involving the direct votes of party members — are most needed to strengthen internal democracy.
Political parties are not private clubs; they are institutions recognised and regulated by the Constitution (Sections 229–230) and statute. They perform vital public functions in our democracy. Shielding their internal processes, especially direct primaries involving vote counting and result declaration, from judicial scrutiny risks entrenching godfatherism, electoral malpractices, and the erosion of public confidence in the entire electoral system.
The volume of grievances already emerging from the ongoing nationwide primaries across all political parties makes this matter not merely academic but an immediate national emergency. If left unaddressed, this ouster clause threatens to undermine the legitimacy of candidates proceeding to the 2027 general elections.
It is imperative that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), as the foremost defender of the rule of law, takes a firm and immediate stance. The Bar must condemn this unconstitutional provision, support strategic litigation to challenge it, and engage the National Assembly for urgent amendments. Senior Advocates, civil society, and all stakeholders in the justice sector should also lend their voices.
Nigeria’s democracy cannot thrive where the legislature seeks to render the judiciary impotent in matters that shape the quality of candidates presented to the electorate. The ouster clause in Section 83(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act 2026 must be declared null and void. The Constitution must prevail.
The rule of law demands nothing less.
Facebook Comments