Section 83 of Electoral Act 2026 Cannot Silence the Courts — Ubani SAN

 

Prominent legal practitioner and former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Section on Public Interest and Development Law (SPIDEL), Monday Ubani, SAN, has declared that Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026 does not—and cannot—oust the constitutional jurisdiction of Nigerian courts over political party disputes.  

Reacting to debates surrounding Section 83(5) of the newly enacted Act—which purports to bar courts from entertaining suits pertaining to the internal affairs of political parties—Ubani asserted that the provision cannot supersede the sacred judicial powers vested in the courts by the 1999 Constitution (as amended).  

Subsections (5) and (6) of Section 83 introduce a strict ouster clause prohibiting courts from hearing intra-party matters, barring ex-parte or interim injunctions, and prescribing heavy financial penalties of not less than ₦10 million each on litigants and counsel who file such actions.  

However, in a detailed legal analysis, Ubani contended that reading Section 83 as an absolute bar to judicial review is both legally flawed and constitutionally unsustainable.  

"So long as the Constitution of Nigeria endures, judicial power remains intact," Ubani stated. "Section 83 of the Electoral Act does not, and cannot, silence the courts."  

Anchoring his position on Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution—which guarantees the courts' inherent jurisdiction to determine all questions regarding civil rights and obligations—Ubani reminded legal stakeholders of the constitutional supremacy clause under Section 1(3). He noted that any statutory provision inconsistent with the Constitution remains null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.  

Citing landmark Supreme Court precedents such as Lakanmi v. AG (Western State), AG of the Federation v. Abubakar, and Abaribe v. Speaker, Abia State House of Assembly, the Senior Advocate emphasized that Nigerian courts have historically exhibited hostility toward statutory provisions designed to shield institutions from judicial scrutiny.  

While acknowledging that courts routinely exercise restraint in purely administrative party matters, Ubani maintained that judicial intervention becomes mandatory once a dispute involves statutory infractions, violations of party constitutions, or breaches of constitutional rights.  

"Once a dispute goes beyond internal management issues—such as routine leadership or administration—and involves the violation of legal rights or statutory non-compliance, the jurisdiction of the court is instantly activated," he explained. "The enduring legal maxim ubi jus ibi remedium—where there is a right, there is a remedy—remains a cornerstone of our legal system."  

Ubani expressed concern over the severe penal provisions targeting legal practitioners under Section 83(6)(b), warning that penalizing lawyers for bringing grievances before the court risks penalizing advocacy and entrenching impunity within political parties.

He urged a "constitutionally compliant reading" of the law, suggesting that while Section 83 rightly seeks to curb forum shopping, frivolous litigation, and conflicting ex-parte orders, it cannot extinguish the judiciary's fundamental duty to uphold the rule of law.