By Vincent Kalu and Lukman Olabiyi
In the last few weeks, there has been confusion among some political parties following the Supreme Court rulings stating that the courts were bereft of the jurisdiction to dabble into domestic affairs of political parties.
Since the ruling, the two main opposition parties in Nigeria – the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP) have been in turmoil.
While the PDP has yet to resolve who actually holds the position of National Secretary of the party, in the Labour Party, two factions have continued to lay claim to the position of the party’s National Chairman.
Many Nigerians have expressed disagreements with the apex court rulings, which they insist have deepened the leadership crises in the opposition parties. Others have expressed concern that barring the courts from hearing cases from political parties would cause the leadership of the political parties to become dictatorial and despotic, since there would be no institution or authority to curtail their excesses.
Saturday Sun sought the views of some eminent legal minds on the situation.
No law can eradicate fair hearing, other constitutional rights – Prof Itse Sagay, SAN
The judgement shouldn’t be interpreted as an absolute thing. There is a limit to which political parties’ officers can operate.
In other words, there is a limit to what they can do which is within the law, and it may get to a state which is totally outside the law. Such action, basically, it’s against the principles that are in our constitution and in our human rights. For example, things like fair hearing, which is a situation that has no exception, which no law can eradicate, and other constitutional rights, which are very, very clear, and therefore, no law can denigrate them.
So, I don’t quite agree with the Supreme Court. Their views were expressed without any provision, any control. So the parties’ officers cannot be acting in a wild and uncontrolled manner. There is a limit to which they can do that.
I think the Supreme Court is limited to matters that are based, for example, on who represents a party; the choice of the candidates who represent a party is internal affairs. But, if the basic principles of human rights, actually fair, hearing are broken in the process of selection, then, a complaint can be sustained.
But, if the party’s political officers have gone through the processes and ended up saying this is our choice, you cannot question that.
It’s only when they abandon basic constitutional requirements that they can be held liable in spite of that position.
The choice of who becomes a candidate, an aggrieved party member cannot approach the court if the party has gone through the normal process. He cannot question the choice, provided the party has gone to the normal person.
The idea is simply to reduce confusion. You know Nigerians, if you leave it open, elections will not hold because there’ll be allegation, there’ll be actions in the court; it will never stop at any stage, it has to go to the Supreme Court. Then, there’ll be confusion, there’ll be chaos. By the time the case is still on, elections are due, and they will bring an action to try to stop election.
So, it is just to avoid all those things that party officers are given the power, once they’ve gone through the process, laid down by law, you cannot bring an action to question their decision. I think that is the whole idea.
PDP and LP should go back to the Supreme Court for it to clarify its decision; there is a provision for that, and it can easily be done.
I’ve seen some confusion arising from it. Example, in the Labour Party, I have read in the papers where each of those individuals is claiming to be the authentic leader of the party. You can’t have a judgment that can be interpreted in so many different ways.
That’s not acceptable. They have to go back to the Supreme Court, for the Supreme Court to come out clearly and state who is in, and who is out, so that the parties can rest a little and fulfil their obligations towards getting people elected.
Apex court ruling creating more injustice than bringing about justice – Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN
In a long line of decisions, the Supreme Court has maintained that party disputes are internal affairs reserved only for the political parties to solve. They use this on the basis of what it is called the political question doctrine.
Political question doctrine theorises that courts are not set out, or they are not meant to be involved in politics or political matters, or to involve themselves in matters that are hypothetical or academic, and that courts should just resolve real live disputes between warring parties.
So, it is apparently based on that doctrine that the Supreme Court had already said, look, we don’t want to touch political party issue; it is a matter that is reserved for them.
But the problem that has cropped up from this, particularly in a country like Nigeria, where the principle of ‘winner-takes- all’ operates, it has become necessary and very important to begin to review this stance of the Supreme Court. The reason is that many political parties have become dictatorial. Some political parties in Nigeria are actually owned by certain individuals or group of individuals; thus marginalising the vast majority of membership of such parties.
In a country like Nigeria, where internal democracy in the various political parties is glaringly lacking, and where some political parties are actually owned by certain individuals or group of individuals, or certain oligarchy, it’s absolutely necessary for the Supreme Court to begin to re-jig and review this line of decisions through a policy decision.
The reason is that, as an election petition lawyer, I’ve witnessed many series of cases, where tickets squarely won by certain individuals were snatched from them and handed over to other preferred individuals within the same political party. And when such a person goes to court to externalise his grievances and get redress, he is quickly met by the judicial precedent through the Supreme Court that party matters are internal matters of the political parties, which are not actionable or justiciable in the court of law. Such protesters go back crying about the injustice meted out to them through the judicial process.
I think one of the reasons why the courts also run away from engaging in internal affairs of parties is that the problems of political parties are so many, so multifaceted, so multifarious that for courts to be able to cope in looking at all of them, they may have no other time to do any other business apart from political parties matters.
I think what should be done is for the Supreme Court to make practice directions, which shows what kind of cases that can come to the Supreme Court even if they are party matters, and what kind of cases should not.
But to have this blanket judicial precedent of party matters being internal and not subject to review through judicial methodology, I think it’s not moving us forward at all. And it’s creating more injustice than it is bringing about justice.
It is simple for the PDP and the Labour Party to settle their crises. If I were the lawyer of these two political parties, I will simply take this matter to the high court or federal high court through originating summons. Originating summons is a process that simply asks the court to construct a document whether an agreement, whether certain records or whether certain provisions. All that the lawyers will do is to attach the judgment of the Supreme Court and ask for interpretation, stating that, this is the document, and based on this document, is it A or B that this judgment is in favour of ?
Originating summons can be finished within one or two months maximum, and the court will handle the judgment, stating that, going by this document of the Supreme Court that you have given to me to interpret and based on everything I’m seeing before me, the interpretation is that this judgment is in favour of A or B. If one party is dissatisfied, it goes to the Court of Appeal, and if it is still dissatisfied again, it goes to the Supreme Court, and then the matter will now come back to the apex court, as to what exactly it meant.
You cannot go back to the Supreme Court now and ask them to interpret their own judgment or to review their own judgment.
But, through originating summons, the Supreme Court will be able to wade in and interpret its own judgement.
Parties that can’t manage internal issues have no business in government– Ex-NBA Chairman, Dave Ajetomobi
Former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch, Dave Ajetomobi, in his submission, opined that any political party unable to resolve its internal crisis amicably is unfit to govern.
Ajetomobi emphasised the importance of internal conflict resolution, noting that political parties must take responsibility for managing their affairs in accordance with their constitutions.
“The Supreme Court is meant to function as a policy court, but that has not been the reality in our clime. However, I believe the court is now trying to steer things in that direction by encouraging political parties to address issues related to their internal operations”, Ajetomobi said.
According to him, allowing parties to resolve disputes internally would significantly reduce the burden on the judiciary and prevent the court from being overwhelmed by cases filed by individuals with limited understanding of the law.
Supreme Court shouldn’t shy away from delivering decisive judgements – Chijioke Ifenkwe
Rights activist and legal practitioner, Chijioke Ifenkwe, has expressed deep concern over recent rulings by the Supreme Court on matters related to internal crises within political parties in Nigeria.
Speaking on the development, Ifenkwe criticized the apex court for what he described as inconsistency and reluctance to make definitive pronouncements in politically sensitive cases.
According to him, the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, plays a critical role in shaping and sustaining Nigeria’s democratic structure through its interpretation of the law.
He lamented that the court’s failure to decisively rule on key internal party disputes sends troubling signals about the state of governance and the influence of politics on judicial decisions.
“The role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws, and the Supreme Court, as the final arbiter, is expected to give clear and conclusive verdicts. When the court shies away from delivering judgments in matters that require clarity, it reflects the worrying state of institutions in our country,” Ifenkwe stated.
He further linked the ongoing leadership crises within the Labour Party and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to political interference, emphasising that the hope many had placed in the judiciary as a refuge from political manipulation appears to be dwindling.
“It’s unfortunate that even the courts, which were once seen as the last hope for justice, is now seem compromised or hesitant in politically charged cases,” he added.
Ifenkwe called for stronger, independent institutions and urged for a future where Nigeria’s democratic processes can function without undue political influence.
No ambiguity in Supreme Court verdict -Maduka Onwukeme
Rights activist and legal practitioner, Maduka Onwukeme, in his opinion on the ongoing controversy surrounding recent Supreme Court judgments on political party leadership disputes, particularly those involving the Labour Party (LP), asserted that there is no ambiguity in the Supreme Court’s pronouncements. He said the apex court was clear in its ruling that it is not within the jurisdiction of lower courts to affirm individuals as rightful party leaders or executives.
According to him, the confusion trailing the judgments has been deliberately fuelled by losing parties which he said have continued to misinterpret and twist the rulings to serve their personal interests.
Citing the case of the Labour Party, Onwukeme emphasized that the Supreme Court was explicit in setting aside the lower court’s affirmation of Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the party. He noted that the court also reinforced the legal position that the internal affairs of political parties are not matters for judicial interference.
“Their Lordships reaffirmed that issues relating to internal party affairs fall outside the jurisdiction of the courts.”
Despite the clarity of the judgment, Onwukeme acknowledged that the lingering controversy may necessitate a further approach to the Supreme Court for an official interpretation of the rulings to lay the matter to rest once and for all.
Nothing wrong in Supreme Court halting lower courts from dabbling into parties’ internal affairs – Gideon Okebu
Right activist and lawyer, Gideon Okebu said:”the Supreme Court’s reasoning in deciding that courts should not dabble into the internal affairs of political parties is shrewd, given the dynamics, fluidity and inconsistencies which characterise politics.
“Courts on the other hand are, or ought to be, rooted in fundamental principles and precedents to which they are inextricably bound.
“Although political parties are regulated bodies/associations, in its formation or membership, members elect what platforms and structures are aligned with their interests, in consonance with the constitutional right to Association. Consequently, a political party is at liberty to set its own rules, standards, preferences and Modus Operandi, which are usually contained in the party’s constitution. If the provisions of a political party’s constitution are within the confines of the law and do not contravene any law in force, they are to be adhered to by all subscribing members to the party.
“However, compliance or non compliance with the internal standards, principles and procedures of such a political party are not rights which courts should entertain, if they do not contravene laws passed by an established government/body.
“The foregoing accords with and represents the reasoning of the apex court in its decision that Courts should stay away from political affairs which do not implicate or impact rights or obligations under a law of the land.
“Consequently, if the interests, affairs, principles or operations of political parties no longer aligned with an individual member or faction within that party, they are liberty to change their party, rather than trying to compel compliance with private rules/laws which are not guaranteed under any law passed by a legitimate government/body. The right to change political association is exemplified by the frequent switch in political parties by Nigerian politicians.
The rancour and internal wrangling in PDP and LP can best be resolved by a consensus and the meeting of minds of the stakeholders, if those issues affect internal party procedures and affairs. However, if the issues impact or implicate any right under an applicable law in force in Nigeria, then such issues can be litigated before the Courts, for the determination of the rights and obligations involved.”
On whether there should be restrictions on matters brought to court, he said: “The dichotomy between justiciable rights and non-justiciable rights is primarily an understanding that law was never intended to regulate every single aspect of life or conduct
“Law and its courts accommodate the discretion of an individual or group to determine and regulate their own affairs without the interference of the law. Thus, if an action or conduct is not regulated, proscribed or enjoined by any law of the land, any such questions have no business in court.
PDP, LP crises can still be resolved by the courts – Kabir Akingbolu
The leadership crisis in Labour Party and PDP can only still be resolved through the courts.
Based on my understanding, what the court is saying is that some issues that are not justiciable should not be the problem of the Supreme Court.
If the candidature of a party is not okay, it shouldn’t be the headache of another political party to be complaining of the candidature of another political party. Where is the locu standi or right to bring the action? Those are the things the Supreme Court is talking about.
Because if you look at Zamfara State in the past, a non-political party, a non-member of a political party filing a suit and the suit resulted in removing all the elected members. Those are the kind of things the Supreme Court is talking about, based on my understand, because any dispute or whatever will still go to court.
The only thing that the court should be wary of is if they bring it and it’s not justiciable, they should throw it away. Not that they should be unnecessarily dictatorial. Like it happened under Obasanjo’s regime in those days that anything can just happen. The issue is, you have your constitution, you follow the constitution in nominating your candidates.
Where the constitution does not follow the nomination of the candidates, the court will definitely intervene. So it’s not an excuse that, oh, anything can, anything goes, no, it is not so. And the aggrieved parties will still go to court where the constitution of the party is not followed.
Like in the case of Amechi and INEC, you understand, in 2007, the Supreme Court identified the fact or was conscious of the fact that the constitution of a political party should be the guiding light in selection of candidates for election. So this is it. But where the constitution is followed strictly, then there is no how the court will be able to meddle in the affairs of the political party.
But where it is not followed, they will definitely meddle in the affairs of the political party and put right those things that the leaders cannot put correctly. Now, again, there has always been a restriction on matters that can go to court, in the sense that when you are not a member of a political party, you cannot bring an action.
That’s a restriction, but it’s a justified restriction. You understand? So those are the kind of restrictions that the court can impose. There is no other decision that can come that I’m a member of the political party and somebody that is not a member of this party is picked as a candidate.
I, as a member of that political party, can challenge it, but a non-member of the political party may not be able to so challenge it. These are the issues.