Court declares political parties’ diaspora chapters illegal, nullifies UK Congress

A Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama has delivered a landmark judgment, declaring the diaspora chapters of Nigerian political parties illegal, unconstitutional, and unknown to Nigerian law. The court, presided over by Justice Peter Kekemeke, subsequently nullified the All Progressives Congress (APC) party congress held in the United Kingdom. This ruling, stemming from a suit filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), asserts that no political party registered in Nigeria possesses the constitutional authority to establish, maintain, or conduct congresses outside the country’s territorial boundaries. The decision carries significant implications for political party structures, their engagement with Nigerians abroad, and the ongoing debate surrounding diaspora participation in Nigeria’s electoral process.

The landscape of Nigerian political party operations has been significantly reshaped by a recent pronouncement from the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court. In a judgment that has sent ripples through the political class and the Nigerian diaspora, the court in Maitama declared that political parties registered in Nigeria cannot legally establish or operate chapters outside the nation’s territorial borders. This decision directly led to the nullification of a congress conducted by the United Kingdom chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC), underscoring the court’s firm stance on the territoriality of Nigerian law concerning political entities.

This ruling, delivered by Justice Peter Kekemeke in the suit marked CV/187/2025, represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation of Nigeria’s constitutional and electoral frameworks. It addresses a long-standing, albeit often unaddressed, practice by political parties to extend their organizational structures globally. For legal practitioners, understanding the nuances of this judgment is crucial, as it impacts party administration, compliance requirements, and the broader discourse on the rights and limitations of Nigerians in the diaspora regarding political engagement. This article delves into the background, analysis, and implications of this significant judicial pronouncement, offering insights for navigating the evolving legal terrain.

The legal framework governing political parties in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and the Electoral Act, 2022. These foundational documents outline the conditions for the registration, operation, and internal governance of political associations. Section 40 of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of every Nigerian to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular, to form or belong to any political party. However, this right is subject to the detailed regulatory provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act.

Specifically, Sections 221, 222, 223, 224, and 225 of the 1999 Constitution set out stringent requirements for political parties, including that their national headquarters must be situated in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and they must have a presence in at least two-thirds of the states of the Federation. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is constitutionally empowered to register and regulate political parties, ensuring their compliance with these provisions. Historically, Nigerian political parties have maintained informal or semi-formal chapters in various countries where a significant Nigerian diaspora resides, engaging in mobilization, fundraising, and internal party activities, often without explicit legal backing within Nigeria’s domestic laws. This practice has long existed in a grey area, with the recent FCT High Court judgment now providing definitive clarity.

The FCT High Court’s decision in *Independent National Electoral Commission v. All Progressives Congress* (Suit No: CV/187/2025) is rooted in a strict interpretation of the territorial application of Nigerian law. Justice Kekemeke unequivocally held that diaspora chapters of political parties are “illegal, unconstitutional and unknown to Nigerian law.” The court emphasized that the Constitution and extant electoral laws do not provide for the establishment, maintenance, or conduct of official party activities, including congresses, beyond Nigeria’s geographical boundaries. This aligns with the general principle that a state's municipal courts primarily exercise jurisdiction over matters arising within its territory, unless specific legislative provisions extend such jurisdiction extraterritorially.

The judgment draws a critical distinction between the rights of individual Nigerians in the diaspora and the operational scope of political parties. While Nigerians abroad retain their freedom to support and mobilize for their preferred candidates, the court clarified that political parties themselves cannot formally establish structures or organize congresses for their members outside Nigeria. This distinction is vital, as it acknowledges the civic engagement of the diaspora while confining the legal personality and operational reach of registered political parties to the national territory. The court further underscored the gravity of non-compliance by stipulating that any party, individual, or group operating, sponsoring, or promoting a diaspora chapter commits an offence, with potential penalties including a fine of ₦5 million and imprisonment for individuals managing such chapters and collecting dues. The order for the forfeiture of over ₦30 million generated from the APC UK congress to INEC highlights the financial implications of this ruling.

This ruling also intersects with the broader debate on diaspora voting. While INEC has, in the past, advocated for legislative amendments to enable Nigerians abroad to vote, citing global best practices and their significant contributions to the economy, the current constitutional provisions (Sections 77(2) and 117(2)) explicitly limit voting rights to citizens physically present in Nigeria during registration and elections. The court's decision reinforces the existing legal limitations on formal diaspora political structures, suggesting that any expansion of diaspora participation, beyond individual support, would require significant constitutional and legislative reforms. This judgment also implicitly challenges the notion that internal party affairs are entirely non-justiciable, especially when they contravene fundamental constitutional and statutory provisions regarding party formation and operation, distinguishing it from cases where courts have declined jurisdiction over purely internal party disputes.

The FCT High Court’s declaration that political parties’ diaspora chapters are illegal marks a significant legal development with far-reaching consequences for Nigerian political parties and their international engagement. It provides definitive judicial clarity on a practice that had largely operated without explicit legal sanction, reinforcing the principle of territoriality in the application of Nigeria’s electoral laws. Political parties must now critically review and restructure their international operations to align with this judgment, discontinuing formal chapter activities and ensuring that any engagement with the diaspora remains within the bounds of individual mobilization and support, rather than institutional party structures.

For legal practitioners, this ruling necessitates a thorough understanding of the constitutional and statutory limitations on political party operations. Advising clients, particularly political parties and their members abroad, will require careful navigation of these restrictions to avoid legal liabilities, including fines and imprisonment. While the judgment does not preclude individual diaspora engagement, it firmly shuts the door on formal party structures outside Nigeria. This decision is likely to spur renewed calls for legislative action to address diaspora voting and representation, potentially prompting the National Assembly to consider amendments to the Constitution and the Electoral Act to provide a legal framework for broader diaspora participation, should there be the political will to do so. Until such legislative changes occur, the current judicial pronouncement stands as the authoritative position.