By O.C ALI

1.0          INTRODUCTION

As Nigerians, Party members and Political Leaders prepare towards the various National conventions of Political parties in Nigeria, as a build up to the 2023 general National elections, it is a fact that candidates and their supports would be out to protect their “political interest” by all means necessary, same having been remarked as the only thing permanent in political ambitions, above even “friends, enemies and political sins”.

The Nigeria political history has revealed to us that at every stage of political deliberations and events (Party conventions, primary election and the major general elections) in preparation for securing political offices, the courts are flooded by litigants seeking the court’s intervention in the determination of their civil and political rights under various laws of the federation. The court however, does not have an unfettered power to adjudicate upon all such matters, although this seems to have been lost in the minds of litigants and Lawyers alike, as we see all manners of intra-party disputes being presented before the courts for determination.

In the above light, this article highlights the roles and limitations of the Nigerian courts in adjudicating intra-party political disputes, so as to maintain the sanctity of our courts, and ensure that the time and resources of litigants and that of the court are discharged into productive engagements.

This exposition will state the general position of the law on the role of the courts in deciding intra-party disputes and also attempt to bring out exceptional circumstances wherein disputes that emanates within a political party operation (intra-party affairs) could be decided upon by a Court of law when its jurisdiction has been properly invoked.

2.0       CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION

At this point it is important to state that there are two significant concepts in this article that calls for analysis, before making further progress, to wit: political party and intra-party disputes.

  • POLITICAL PARTY: The term ‘political party’ has been conceptualized in various ways by scholars over time. To Sartori Giovanni, an Italian Political scientist, a political party is ‘any political group identified by an official label that presents at elections candidates for public office’. To Joseph LaPalombara, an American Political Scientist, a political party is ‘any political group, in possession of an official label and a formal organization that links center to locality, that presents at elections, and is capable of placing through elections candidates for public offices’.

From the foregoing, it is safe to resolve that a political party is a voluntary entity/association made up of people whose common aim is to translate the agenda that unites them into policy-based actions after gaining political power via the electoral process.

  • INTRA-PARTY DISPUTES: Intra-party disputes suggest a clash of interests among members of a political party who are struggling over the control of the decision-making machinery of the party and other resources that could confer certain benefits on themselves. In the case of PDP v. K.S.I.E.C (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 968) 565 at 577 the court defines intra party dispute as: “A dispute between members of the party inter se, or between a member on the one hand and the party on the other.”

For instance, some intra-party disputes among members often arise over issues of internal leadership recruitments, the selection of candidates for general elections, or the sharing of appointive positions.

3.0       ON WHETHER INTRA-POLITICAL PARTY DISPUTES ARE JUSTICIABLE IN NIGERIAN COURTS.

Intra-party disputes of all shapes and complexions have been part and parcel of Nigeria’s democratic journey.

It has been settled by the Apex Court of the land, that issues bordering on the internal management/domestic affairs of a political party, which include the selection of its leaders made based on popular votes/decision will not be justiciable in law. The Supreme Court in the case ONUOHA V. OKAFOR (1983) 2 SCNLR 244 AT 254, my Lord Per Obaseki, JSC (as he then was) held thus:

“the practice of the Court is not to run associations (corporation and unincorporated associations) for the members. It leaves the members to run their association.”

Similarly, in the case of JOE ODEY AGI, SAN V. PEOPLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS (2016) LPERL-42578 (SC) the Supreme court while sitting over a case which questioned the decision taken by the PDP (a Political party) in running its affairs had this to say, in emphasizing the jurisdiction of Courts over internal affairs of political parties, the Court held at page 94-95, Paras A-B of the above judgment, thus:

“…the above makes it very clear that a party is supreme over its own affairs. See Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (pt. 843) p. 310, Onuoha v. Okafor & Ors (1983) 14 NSCC p. 494. Uzodima v. Izunaso (No.2) (2011) 17 NWLR (pt. 1275) p. 30; PDP v. Sylva (2012) 3 NWLR (pt. 1316) p. 85. A party is like a club. A voluntary association. It has its rule, regulations, guidelines and Constitution. Members join the party on their own free will. By Joining they have freely given their consent to be bound by the rules, regulations and guidelines and Constitution of the party. These rules of the party must be obeyed by all member of the party, as the party’s decision is final over its own affairs. Members of a party will do well to understand and appreciate the finality of a party’s decision over its domestic and internal affairs… Where the National Working Committee of the 1st respondent regards a person as a member of the party eligible to contest the primaries, no member of the party can complain against such a person. Both Courts below were correct that the 3rd respondent is member of the 1st respondent. Such an issue is within the domestic and internal affairs of the 1st respondent over which the Courts have no jurisdiction, as such is not justiciable.”

In the very recent case of EYITAYO OLAYINYA JEGEDE & 1 OR V. INEC & 3 ORS, (unreported) delivered on the 28th day of July, 2021, the Supreme Court held on page 40-41 of the judgment, Per Emmanuel Agim, JSC reading the lead judgment that:

“in any case, the 2nd Respondent, a registered political party being a voluntary organization, the question of who should hold offices in it, whether it can appoint its member to hold office in acting capacity or authorize a member to exercise the powers of an office in it and whether it has violated its own constitution by appointing a member to hold a particular office in it or discharge the functions of that office, CANNOT be entertained by any court. Those questions deal with the internal affairs of the political party. Those are non-justiciable questions. Courts have no jurisdiction over the affairs of a political party, except where the statute expressly gives a court jurisdiction deal (sic) with any internal affair of a political party.”

Dovetailing the above position of the law by the apex court in the above highlighted cases, goes without saying that the conflicts arising out of the domestic/internal affairs of a political party are not justifiable in our courts. For clarity, some of the intra-party disputes that falls within this category as shown include:

  • Instances where the National Working Committee (NEC) of a political party regards a person as a member of the party eligible to contest its primaries, no member of the party can approach a court to complain against such internal decision taken.
  • The Court cannot compel a political party to sponsor a candidate outside the thin and land limit conferred under Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). The right to nominate or sponsor a candidate for an elective position is a domestic right of a political party.
  • The issue of leadership and membership are internal affairs of a political party, it is not opened for a Court to inquire into, the membership/leadership of a political party.

Notably, Section 87 (10) of the Electoral Act, 2010 gives party members the right to approach the courts for redress in intra-party issues, the interpretation of Section 87 (10) is not meant to operate at large, so as to open a flood gate for litigations by political party members, who are dissatisfied with the conduct of primary elections in the party. The jurisdiction of the Courts, under this Section, is limited to examining, if the conduct of the said elections internally were strictly in accordance with the Party’s Constitution and Guidelines, the 1999 Constitution, and the Electoral Act. See Uzodinma V. Sen. O. Izunaso (2011) 17 NWLR (pt.1275) 28.

BE THAT AS IT MAY, we must at this point reason further that they may exist certain disputes which emanates from the internal activities (intra-party) of a party that are justiciable in court. Against this background, it is key to understand that Conflicts or disputes arising out of the internal affairs of a party that is founded on the infraction of any of the provision of its constitution/guidelines issued by a political party for the conduct of a process, the Electoral Act, or the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, becomes justiciable and the court can make pronouncement in interpreting the violated provisions.  In this instance, a suit may emanate where a member or members of a political party challenge that an action taken by the party is in contravention of its party constitution or the provisions of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria or an Act of the National Assembly, hence affecting their individual or collective rights.

They are certain provisions of a political party guidelines or the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that could be breached in the process of the management of the affairs of the party. For instance, a political party in the composition of its leadership may breach the provisions of Sections 223 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended 2011); which provides that:

“223 (1). The Constitution and rules of a Political party shall:

  1. Provide for the periodical election on a democratic basis of the principal officers and members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party; and
  2. Ensure that the members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party reflect the federal character of Nigeria.”

(2). …

See also the Provisions of Section 87 (9) of the Evidence Act, 2010 (as amended), the Nigerian court’s jurisdiction on intra-party disputes was expressly circumscribed when it provides thus:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State, for redress”

An obvious breach of above provision of law by a political party is justiciable and the court shall assume jurisdiction and adjudicate over such issue, by virtue of the provision of Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution.

The court held in the very recent case of OSHIOMOLE V. SALIHU (2021) 8 NWLR (pt. 1775) @ 401, held that:

“Courts avoid making decisions on the internal affairs of a political party especially in areas of choice of candidates to contest political offices. But where the appropriate jurisdiction of the Court is properly invoked, for instance, on the interpretation of certain parts of a Political party’s constitution, the Court is duty bond to respond and insist that the party’s constitution must be obeyed. This is to avoid arbitrariness, impunity and illegality. In the instant case, the claims of the 1st to 6th respondents were all based on the interpretation of certain articles of the 2nd appellant’s constitution. Since both the appellants and the 1st to 6th respondents were bond by the constitution of the 2nd appellant, any dispute arising from the interpretation of the constitution, cannot be said to be non-justiciable. In the Circumstance, the 1st to 6th respondent showed the existence of a legal right to be protected and the presence of substantial or serious issue to be tried.” (Paras E-H)

On the whole, the above discussed case laws and statutory provisions settles the fact that the Courts will intervene in the interpretation of any contravention of the constitution of a political party, the Constitution of Nigeria and other laws enacted by the National assembly, such as the Electoral Act, in the cause of the running of the internal affairs of a political party, to avoid arbitrariness, impunity and illegality.

This subsequent aspect of legal argument shall be discussed more in the “PART 2” of this article, as it entails a lot of electoral law jurisprudence. In the part 2 of my writing, I shall consider intra-party disputes that amounts to a Pre-election dispute as defined and backed by law, which the jurisdiction of the courts can be invoked to entertain.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In liberal jurisdictions, political parties have, over the years, developed  institutional frameworks for dealing with conflicts among their rank and file, to prevent them from escalating into crises, so as not to escalate into intense competition and eventually into violence and break down in the party and the National democratic structures.

Against the foregoing, it is recommended that political parties in Nigeria urgently need to re-examine and re-engineer their internal mechanisms for managing conflicts within them. Although there is no doubt that almost all political parties in the country have processes for internal conflict management enshrined in their constitutions, it would appear from existential realities that these institutional frameworks are weak. They therefore, need to be re-engineered and further strengthened. Further, political parties in Nigeria, especially the most powerful, must work towards strengthening the capacities of local branches in the sphere of conflict resolution.

We must also get to understand intra-party conflicts that are justiciable in Courts and those that can simply be resolved by being subjected to the internal mechanisms for managing conflicts within the political party.

O.C ALI, Esq. is an Abuja based Legal practitioner, with experience in Dispute Resolution & Corporate Legal Advisory and he is a Partner at MCALI LEGAL CONSULT, LP., [email protected],+2347030945674