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.
