Courts can’t be hijacked, Atiku lauds Judiciary’s courage over ADC leadership

The Nigerian judiciary has recently reaffirmed its commitment to judicial independence and the rule of law in resolving internal political party disputes, as highlighted by a Federal High Court ruling on the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). This development underscores the judiciary's critical role in safeguarding internal party democracy against attempts by political actors to weaponise the courts. While courts generally exercise caution in intervening in intra-party affairs, they are increasingly asserting jurisdiction where there are clear violations of the Constitution or the Electoral Act. This stance is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the democratic process and preventing the arbitrary imposition of leadership within political parties, thereby reinforcing public trust in the judicial system as a final arbiter.

The Nigerian political landscape is frequently characterised by internal wrangling within political parties, often culminating in protracted legal battles. A recent Federal High Court ruling concerning the leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has drawn significant attention, with commendations from political figures like Atiku Abubakar, who lauded the judiciary's courage and independence. The ruling, which affirmed the legitimate leadership of the ADC, is seen as a bulwark against the perceived weaponisation of courts by desperate political actors seeking to manipulate party structures.

This judicial intervention is not merely an isolated incident but reflects a broader trend where the Nigerian judiciary is increasingly called upon to adjudicate complex political questions. The judiciary's role in these matters is pivotal, as it navigates the delicate balance between upholding internal party autonomy and ensuring adherence to constitutional provisions and electoral laws. This article will delve into the legal framework governing political party disputes in Nigeria, analyse key judicial pronouncements, and discuss the implications of the judiciary's evolving stance on internal party democracy and the overall integrity of the electoral process.

The legal framework governing political parties and electoral processes in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and the Electoral Act, 2022. The Constitution, particularly Sections 221 to 229, outlines the requirements for party registration, their democratic operation, and the need for their constitutions and rules to provide for periodical elections on a democratic basis. Historically, Nigerian courts have often adopted a cautious approach to intervening in the internal affairs of political parties, guided by the 'political question doctrine' which posits that certain issues are best resolved by political branches of government.

However, this traditional reluctance has evolved, particularly with the enactment of successive Electoral Acts. The Electoral Act, 2022, significantly expanded the scope of judicial intervention in internal party matters, especially concerning primary elections. Section 84 of the Electoral Act, 2022, explicitly makes disputed primaries justiciable, granting the Federal High Court exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine pre-election cases. This legislative development was a response to a history of lack of internal party democracy, where political parties often abused their right to nominate candidates by conducting sham primaries. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) also plays a crucial oversight role, monitoring party activities and ensuring compliance with the law.

The judiciary's approach to internal party disputes has been shaped by landmark Supreme Court decisions. Initially, cases like *PDP v. Sylva* (2012) established the principle that the nomination of candidates is largely an exclusive preserve of political parties, and courts would generally not interfere in intra-party affairs. The Supreme Court held that a court lacks jurisdiction to determine who a political party should sponsor, unless a dissatisfied contestant at the primary complains about its conduct, by virtue of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (now Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022).

However, this position was significantly refined in subsequent rulings, demonstrating a shift towards greater judicial scrutiny when statutory or constitutional provisions are violated. The Supreme Court's decision in *APC v. Marafa* (2019) stands as a pivotal example. In that case, the Supreme Court nullified all votes cast for the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Zamfara State during the 2019 general elections, holding that the party failed to conduct valid primaries in accordance with its constitution, the Electoral Act, and the 1999 Constitution. This judgment underscored that while parties have autonomy, it is not absolute and must be exercised within the confines of the law. The court's intervention in *Ugwu v. Ararume* (2007), concerning candidate substitution, further illustrates the judiciary's role in interpreting the Electoral Act to ensure fairness and adherence to due process.

The recent Federal High Court ruling on the ADC leadership aligns with this evolving jurisprudence, affirming the legitimate leadership and rejecting attempts to destabilise the party through litigation. This demonstrates the judiciary's resolve to prevent the 'judicialisation of politics' where courts become mere extensions of political battles. While Section 84(15) of the Electoral Act, 2022, explicitly states that nothing in the section shall empower courts to stop the holding of primaries or general elections, it simultaneously empowers courts to adjudicate disputes arising from the conduct of primaries. This delicate balance ensures that while the electoral timetable is protected, internal party processes are not immune from judicial review if they contravene established laws.

Nevertheless, the increased involvement of courts in political disputes has also raised concerns about judicial independence and the potential for conflicting judgments, leading to public scepticism. The judiciary faces pressure from political actors, and the appointment of judges can sometimes be influenced by political considerations. The courage lauded by Atiku Abubakar, therefore, speaks to the judiciary's ongoing struggle to maintain its integrity and impartiality in the face of such pressures, ensuring that its decisions are based on law and facts, not political expediency.

The judiciary's firm stance on the ADC leadership dispute is a significant affirmation of its role as a guardian of constitutional democracy and internal party integrity in Nigeria. For legal practitioners, this reinforces the importance of advising political parties to strictly adhere to their own constitutions, guidelines, and the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, and the 1999 Constitution. Parties that fail to conduct their internal affairs, particularly primaries and leadership transitions, in a transparent and lawful manner risk judicial intervention that can have far-reaching consequences, as seen in past cases.

Looking ahead, the judiciary will continue to be a critical arena for resolving political disputes, especially as the nation approaches future election cycles. Practitioners should anticipate continued judicial scrutiny of internal party processes, with a clear emphasis on legality and due process. The judiciary's commitment to resisting attempts to 'hijack' the courts for political ends is vital for strengthening democratic institutions and ensuring that the will of party members, as expressed through legitimate processes, is respected. This ongoing vigilance by the courts is indispensable for fostering a more robust and accountable political system in Nigeria.