Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has declared that no court in Nigeria has the power to grant interim or interlocutory injunctions until judgment is delivered in any intra-party dispute, citing provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
In a statement on Sunday, Falana highlighted that members of political parties have been barred from filing suits in any court over the internal affairs of political parties, with severe financial penalties prescribed for lawyers and plaintiffs who violate this provision.
Falana stated that if a case is filed by any member pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party, the lawyer who filed it and the plaintiff will each pay costs of not less than ₦10 million.
The senior advocate cited Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026, which provides comprehensive restrictions on court jurisdiction over political party internal affairs.
According to Falana, the relevant provisions state:
Subsection (5): “Subject to the provision of subsection (3), no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.”
Subsection (6)(a): “Where such action is brought in negation of this provision, no interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained by the Court, but the Court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment and shall give accelerated hearing to the matter.”
Subsection (6)(b): “The Court shall, at the conclusion of the matter, impose costs of not less than ₦10,000,000.00 on the counsel who filed the action and not less than ₦10,000,000.00 on the Plaintiff/Applicant and in addition to payment to the Commission of any cost, including solicitors’ fees incurred by it where joined as a party.”
Falana also highlighted the powers of the Independent National Electoral Commission under the same section.
Subsection (1): The Commission shall keep records of the activities of all registered political parties.
Subsection (2): The Commission may seek information or clarification from any registered political party in connection with any activity of the political party which may be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or any other law, guidelines, rules or regulations made under an Act of the National Assembly.
Subsection (3): The Commission may direct its enquiry to the Chairman or Secretary of the political party at the national, state, local government, or area council or ward level, as the case may be.
Subsection (4): A political party which fails to provide the required information or clarification or carry out any lawful directive given by the Commission in conformity with the provisions of this section is liable to a fine of not more than ₦1,000,000.
Falana’s exposition of Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026 carries significant implications for the ongoing leadership disputes in the African Democratic Congress, the Peoples Democratic Party, and other political parties currently embroiled in litigation.
If the provisions cited by Falana are strictly applied, several questions arise:
On Existing Court Orders: The interim and interlocutory orders that have been granted in the ADC leadership dispute — including the Court of Appeal’s status quo ante bellum order — would appear to be in conflict with Section 83(6)(a), which explicitly states that “no interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained by the Court.”
On Lawyers Involved: Counsel who have filed suits pertaining to political party internal affairs could face ₦10 million fines under Section 83(6)(b).
On Plaintiffs: Members of political parties who have instituted actions over internal party matters could similarly face ₦10 million penalties.
On INEC’s Position: The provision appears to place primary responsibility for resolving internal party disputes with INEC rather than the courts, with judicial intervention limited to final judgments rather than interlocutory relief.
The senior advocate’s statement raises fundamental questions about the validity of the numerous court orders that have been issued in intra-party disputes, and whether lawyers and litigants involved in such cases are exposed to significant financial liability under the new Electoral Act.
For parties like the ADC, whose activities have been paralysed by court orders and INEC’s interpretation of those orders, Falana’s analysis suggests that the legal framework may not support the kind of interim relief that has been granted.
The implications extend beyond the current disputes to the broader question of how political party conflicts will be resolved ahead of the 2027 elections — and whether the courts or INEC will have the final say on internal party governance.
