Month: April 2025

In recent weeks, confusion has gripped several political parties following Supreme Court rulings that courts lack jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties. Since the decisions, Nigeria’s two main opposition parties — the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP) — have faced intensified internal turmoil. While the PDP struggles to resolve the tussle over its National Secretary position, the Labour Party is embroiled in a battle between two factions, each claiming the National Chairmanship. The Supreme Court rulings have drawn sharp reactions. Some Nigerians argue that the decisions have deepened leadership crises, while others fear that shielding party affairs from judicial scrutiny could breed dictatorship within political parties. Saturday Sun sought the views of eminent legal minds on the unfolding situation. No Law Can Eradicate Fair Hearing — Prof. Itse Sagay, SAN Professor Itse Sagay, SAN, warned that the Supreme Court’s decisions should not be seen as absolute. “There is a limit to what political party officers can do within the law,” Sagay explained. “When actions contravene constitutional principles, such as the right to fair hearing, they cannot be insulated from judicial scrutiny.” He criticized the apex court for failing to set necessary boundaries, arguing that party officials must not operate in an unchecked, wild manner. Supreme Court Ruling Could Create More Injustice — Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome, noted that the court’s reliance on the “political question doctrine” — which holds that courts should stay out of political disputes — is becoming problematic in Nigeria’s context. “In Nigeria, where internal democracy is glaringly absent and parties are often controlled by a few individuals, it’s dangerous to give political parties absolute autonomy,” Ozekhome warned. He suggested that the Supreme Court should introduce practice directions to specify the kinds of internal party disputes courts can entertain. Ozekhome advised the PDP and LP to seek interpretation of the rulings through originating summons at the High Court or Federal High Court — a process he said could clarify who is lawfully in charge without violating the Supreme Court’s stance. Parties That Can’t Manage Internal Issues Are Unfit to Govern — Dave Ajetomobi, Ex-NBA Ikeja Chairman Former NBA Ikeja Branch Chairman, Dave Ajetomobi, emphasized that political parties must resolve internal conflicts independently. He asserted, “Any political party that cannot manage its internal affairs has no business governing the country.” Ajetomobi called on the PDP and LP to return to the Supreme Court for clarification to avoid further confusion. Judiciary Must Deliver Decisive Judgments — Chijioke Ifenkwe Rights activist and lawyer, Chijioke Ifenkwe, criticized the Supreme Court for what he described as “inconsistency and reluctance” to make definitive rulings in politically sensitive cases. He lamented that the judiciary’s failure to act decisively is undermining public confidence and deepening political instability. “It’s unfortunate that even the courts, once seen as the last hope for justice, now appear compromised or hesitant in politically charged cases,” Ifenkwe said. No Ambiguity in Supreme Court Verdict — Maduka Onwukeme Legal practitioner and rights activist, Maduka Onwukeme, argued that the Supreme Court’s position is clear: courts lack jurisdiction to affirm leadership disputes within political parties. According to Onwukeme, confusion persists because losing parties continue to deliberately misinterpret the rulings to serve their personal interests. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that seeking an official interpretation from the Supreme Court could help bring finality to the matter. Supreme Court Was Right to Bar Courts From Political Party Affairs — Gideon Okebu Lawyer and activist, Gideon Okebu, defended the Supreme Court’s reasoning, noting that courts should not involve themselves in internal party matters unless fundamental rights or constitutional provisions are violated. “Political parties are voluntary associations that should be allowed to set and follow their own rules, provided they do not violate national laws,” Okebu said. He maintained that disgruntled members dissatisfied with their party’s internal decisions should simply switch parties rather than seek court intervention. PDP, LP Crises Can Still Be Resolved Through Courts — Kabir Akingbolu Human rights lawyer Kabir Akingbolu insisted that while not all internal party disputes are justiciable, cases involving violations of party constitutions or the law are actionable. He explained that courts would still intervene where a party’s internal processes violate constitutional principles, as was seen in landmark cases like Amaechi vs INEC. Akingbolu emphasized that although courts should avoid meddling unnecessarily, they retain the power to step in where injustice is proven within a political party’s processes. Conclusion Legal experts agree that while the Supreme Court’s intent is to reduce judicial overreach into political party matters, a balance must be struck to protect fundamental rights and uphold internal democracy. The PDP and Labour Party have several legal options to resolve their leadership crises — including seeking judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court’s rulings — but ultimately, parties must strengthen their internal mechanisms to avoid such conflicts in the future.

The Archbishop of Ibadan, Methodist Church Nigeria (MCN), Most Rev’d Olugbenga Fafeyinwa, has called on President Bola Tinubu to urgently tackle insecurity, economic hardship, social injustice, corruption, religious extremism, and insurgency in Nigeria. Fafeyinwa made the call during his address at the official opening of the 63rd Annual Synod of the MCN, Ibadan Diocese, themed ‘He Will Rise Again’, held on Friday at MCN, Odo-Ona, Ibadan. Reflecting on the state of the nation, he said:“As we think about our beloved country Nigeria, a nation abundantly blessed by God, one cannot help but weep. Our leadership crisis is both profound and complex, and sadly, the followers have not helped the situation.”However, he expressed hope, saying, “I take solace in God’s providence and capacity to intervene decisively. God never fails, and His promise of redemption remains sure.” Fafeyinwa lamented the alarming reports of corruption, kidnapping, assassinations, and suicide bombings frequently circulated by the media.“The political cabal has hijacked the nation’s resources, holding Nigerians to ransom. It forces us to ask if there is any solution in sight, as it seems that the systems that work elsewhere fail in Nigeria,” he said. He warned the government to be vigilant against individuals attempting to introduce Sharia law to the South-West, stating that such moves could destabilize the region’s peace.“Let Sharia be practised only where it is welcomed; we must not import crisis into peaceful societies,” he stressed. Fafeyinwa also urged the government to focus on ensuring national peace, uninterrupted electricity supply, and economic diversification into agriculture, tourism, and solid minerals. He noted that such initiatives would generate employment and reduce the high rate of youth unemployment across the country.

Nigeria’s Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal on Friday ordered WhatsApp and Meta Platforms Incorporated to pay a $220 million penalty and $35,000 to the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) within 60 days over data discrimination practices in Nigeria. The tribunal upheld the $220 million penalty imposed by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) on WhatsApp and Meta Platforms Incorporated, as well as $35,000 as reimbursement for the Commission’s investigation against the social media giant. The tribunal also dismissed the appeal of WhatsApp and Meta Platforms Incorporated regarding the $220 million penalty imposed by the FCCPC for alleged discriminatory practices in Nigeria. The tribunal’s three-member panel, led by Thomas Okosun, passed the verdict on Friday. WhatsApp and Meta’s legal team, led by Professor Gbolahan Elias (SAN), and the FCCPC’s legal team, represented by Babatunde Irukera (SAN), a former Executive Vice Chairman of the Commission, made their final arguments on behalf of their respective clients on January 28, 2025. Nairametrics previously reported that WhatsApp and Meta Platforms Incorporated had appealed to the tribunal, arguing that the FCCPC’s $220 million penalty should be overturned, citing 22 reasons, including alleged vague directives, unjustifiable data-sharing orders, and procedural errors. The appellants claimed that the FCCPC’s demands were vague, technically impossible to implement within the stipulated timeframe, and unsupported by Nigerian law. The fine imposed by the FCCPC followed an investigation into alleged violations of data protection and consumer rights by Meta and WhatsApp. The Commission expressed concerns about Meta’s allegedly abusive and invasive practices affecting data subjects and consumers in Nigeria. What WhatsApp and FCCPC Legal Documents Say In their appeal, the appellants argued that the FCCPC denied them a fair hearing by imposing a hefty penalty without giving them an opportunity to understand how the penalty would be calculated or to respond to the calculation of the proposed amount. Elias had urged the tribunal not to rely on foreign laws that are not applicable in Nigeria, maintaining there is no abuse of dominance since users can choose from other providers such as TikTok and Google Meet. In response, Irukera urged the tribunal to uphold the Commission’s orders and dismiss the appeal in its entirety. He countered the appellants’ claims about foreign precedents, stating that while foreign law is not binding, it is persuasive in similar contexts. The FCCPC also sought the tribunal’s leave to transfer the Commission’s “entire record within its custody” to the panel to support a fair and transparent adjudication of the dispute. What The Tribunal Said Passing its verdict on Friday, the tribunal stated that the reliance on foreign decisions by the FCCPC is appropriate and persuasive in law. “The appellants were given ample opportunity to be heard,” Okosun said. “The tribunal finds that the FCCPC did not exceed its powers while making orders in respect to data protection,” the tribunal said, adding that the FCCPC acted within its lawful mandate to address market dominance. •The tribunal agreed with the FCCPC that the privacy policy of WhatsApp and Meta breached Nigerian laws. “The tribunal finds no error in the overall orders of the FCCPC,” the tribunal held. “Accordingly, the administrative penalties of the FCCPC were lawfully imposed on Meta and WhatsApp,” the tribunal held. The tribunal ruled that the appellants’ appeal against the FCCPC failed and was dismissed. The tribunal subsequently made the following orders: What You Should Know Following the FCCPC’s orders, WhatsApp stated: “In 2021, we globally informed users about how talking to businesses would work. While there was initial confusion, it has proven quite popular.” Similar fines are not uncommon. The European Data Protection Board had fined Meta a record €1.2 billion for non-compliance with EU privacy regulations. Over the past five years, Big Tech companies such as Amazon, Meta, and Google have faced significant fines under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The legality of the FCCPC’s penalties against Meta Platforms Incorporated is now a matter for the tribunal to decide.