By Àrẹ̀mọ Sehinde Ilẹgbusi
The just concluded APC primary elections may have opened the floodgates for a wave of litigation across the country. From several quarters, complaints of manipulation, exclusion, imposition, and procedural irregularities have continued to trail the exercises. Predictably, some beneficiaries of the controversial outcomes have sought refuge in the familiar argument that party primaries are “internal affairs” of political parties and therefore not justiciable.
That position, with due respect, is no longer entirely tenable under Nigerian law.
While political parties retain considerable discretion in managing their internal processes, the moment primaries are conducted under the framework of the Electoral Act, the Constitution, INEC regulations, and the party’s own guidelines, such processes become subject to judicial scrutiny. The courts may not ordinarily interfere in purely political disagreements, but they are empowered to intervene where there is clear violation of extant laws and procedures.
Section 84 of the Electoral Act 2022 expressly grants aspirants who participated in party primaries the right to challenge irregularities before the Federal High Court or State High Court. This provision fundamentally altered the old doctrine that insulated political parties from judicial oversight in nomination disputes.
Consequently, allegations bordering on:
• exclusion of lawful delegates,
• use of fake delegate lists,
• failure to conduct valid primaries,
• unlawful substitution of candidates,
• intimidation or suppression of voters,
• manipulation of results,
• or flagrant disregard for party guidelines,
are matters that courts can competently adjudicate upon.
The Supreme Court has, in several decisions, maintained that political parties cannot hide under the cloak of “internal affairs” to perpetrate arbitrariness or illegality. Once statutory procedures are prescribed for the conduct of primaries, compliance ceases to be optional. Political discretion cannot override the law.
It must, however, be emphasized that courts do not function as political referees or returning officers. Judicial intervention is not activated merely because an aspirant feels dissatisfied or believes delegates were politically induced. Nigerian courts usually require substantial and credible evidence showing actual breach of law, procedure, or constitutional provisions.
This distinction is important because politics is inherently transactional and competitive. The judiciary will not invalidate primaries simply on the basis of bitterness arising from defeat. The burden remains on the claimant to establish that the process itself was fundamentally flawed in law.
Another crucial factor is timing. Election jurisprudence in Nigeria is heavily constrained by constitutional timelines. Courts are often reluctant to disrupt electoral calendars, especially when general elections draw near. Many intra-party disputes eventually become academic or overtaken by events because of procedural delays and the urgency attached to electoral schedules.
Nevertheless, where compelling evidence exists, the courts possess wide powers to:
• nullify flawed primaries,
• disqualify improperly nominated candidates,
• recognize rightful winners,
• or order fresh primaries altogether.
For this reason, the APC may yet witness a prolonged season of legal contests in the aftermath of these primaries. The political implications could be far-reaching, particularly in constituencies where aggrieved aspirants command significant grassroots influence.
Beyond the courtroom battles lies a deeper issue: the credibility of internal democracy within political parties. Primaries are meant to reflect fairness, transparency, and the genuine will of party members. Where delegates feel manipulated or aspirants perceive outcomes as predetermined, confidence in the democratic process becomes weakened.
Ultimately, the courts may not solve every political grievance, but they remain an essential constitutional safeguard against impunity in the electoral process. Those who assume that every controversial primary outcome is shielded by the doctrine of “internal party affairs” may soon discover that the law has evolved beyond that narrow interpretation.
Post a Comment