Ubani Disagrees With NBA, Festus Okoye On Courts’ Role In Party Disputes

A human rights lawyer, Monday Ubani (SAN), has stated that contrary to the positions of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and former Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) national commissioner, Festus Okoye, Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026 cannot exclude the constitutional jurisdiction of the courts over political party disputes where legal rights are infringed.

Ubani’s position followed a recent statement by the president of the NBA, Afam Osigwe (SAN), warning lawyers against filing suits on internal political party affairs contrary to Section 83 of the Electoral Act, as well as comments by Okoye in a television interview blaming lawyers for escalating party crises through frequent resort to the courts.

In his statement, Osigwe said lawyers who institute cases on matters deemed internal to political parties risk disciplinary action. At the same time, he also urged judicial authorities to sanction judges who assume jurisdiction in such disputes.

Okoye, on his part, reportedly defended the new law as a necessary measure to curb endless litigation, forum shopping and abuse of judicial processes in political party conflicts.

But reacting in a legal opinion made available to LEADERSHIP, Ubani said the interpretation being advanced by both the NBA and Okoye was too broad and constitutionally unsustainable.

He also noted that the idea that lawyers had become scapegoats in internal party conflicts because they sought recourse to the courts was not supported by constitutional principles.

The lawyer further argued that although Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act, when read in isolation, appears to bar judicial intervention in internal party matters, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution.

Ubani also submitted that Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution vests courts with powers to determine disputes relating to civil rights and obligations. In contrast, Section 1(3) establishes the supremacy of the Constitution over any conflicting legislation.

“With the greatest respect to lawyers holding this view, that broad interpretation may appear overstretched and not constitutionally sustainable,” he stated.

The senior lawyer maintained that Nigerian courts had consistently shown reluctance to accept attempts to remove their jurisdiction through statutory ouster clauses.

He cited decisions such as Lakanmi v AG (Western State), AG Federation v Abubakar, and Abaribe v Speaker, Abia State House of Assembly, saying the judiciary had repeatedly affirmed that courts must be slow to hold that their powers had been excluded.

Ubani acknowledged that courts traditionally exercise restraint in matters deemed purely internal to political parties, including membership, leadership and discipline, but stressed that such restraint was never absolute.

He said once disputes involve breaches of the Electoral Act, violations of party constitutions, or infringement of constitutional rights, the courts are empowered to intervene.

He warned that any interpretation placing political parties beyond judicial scrutiny would expose party members to exclusion, manipulation of primaries and other unlawful acts without remedy.

“The enduring maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, where there is a right, there is a remedy, remains a cornerstone of our legal system,” he said.

Ubani also raised concerns about the law’s punitive provisions, which appear to target lawyers and litigants seeking judicial redress.

He questioned how legal practitioners would determine in advance which cases are appropriate or successful, warning that punishing counsel merely for losing political cases would be troubling.

While condemning the abuse of court processes, forum shopping, and conflicting ex parte orders, he said sanctions may be justified only in clear cases of frivolous litigation devoid of legal basis. He, however, insisted that “two wrongs cannot make a right.”