A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Magaji Ibrahim Mato, has said Nigerian courts still have jurisdiction over political party disputes where there are alleged violations of the Constitution, the Electoral Act or party guidelines.
Mato stated this during an interview on ARISE News on Wednesday, while reacting to debates surrounding Section 83 of the Electoral Act, which is often cited as limiting judicial interference in internal party affairs.
According to him, the provision cannot be interpreted in isolation.
“To understand any statute, you must read it holistically. You don’t pick a section and apply it in isolation,” he said.
He explained that although Section 83 provides that internal affairs of political parties are non-justiciable, other provisions of the same law create exceptions.
“Section 83 is not the only section in the Electoral Act. You must also look at related provisions. Subsection five talks about internal party affairs, but it does not stand alone,” he said.
Mato specifically pointed to Section 88(2) of the Electoral Act, which he said allows aggrieved aspirants to approach the courts in pre-election matters.
“If you are an aspirant who has obtained a nomination form and you believe the Constitution, Electoral Act or party guidelines have been violated, you are entitled to go to the Federal High Court,” he said.
He also referenced constitutional provisions, insisting that access to court remains protected under the law.
“This aligns with the Constitution itself. It does not take away the right of citizens to approach the court,” he added.
The senior lawyer, however, stressed that courts are generally discouraged from interfering in purely internal party issues such as leadership selection and nominations, noting that political parties already have internal dispute resolution mechanisms.
“All political parties have constitutions and internal structures for resolving disputes, from ward to national level,” he said.
Mato further noted that the Supreme Court has consistently taken a similar position to reduce what he described as unnecessary litigation that clogs the courts.
He added that judicial intervention is only justified where there is a clear breach of constitutional or legal provisions.
“The exception is where there is an infringement of the Constitution, the Electoral Act or party guidelines. In such cases, the court can intervene,” he said.
On concerns about delays in election-related judgments, Mato said such matters require urgent attention due to their national implications.
“Justice delayed is justice denied. Electoral matters require speed because they affect the entire country,” he said.
He expressed confidence that the Supreme Court understands the urgency of political cases, especially those tied to election timelines set by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Mato also dismissed concerns that Section 83 conflicts with the Constitution, arguing that it does not block access to court but only reinforces existing legal principles on internal party affairs.
“The section does not stop anyone from going to court. It only affirms that parties should manage their internal affairs independently,” he said.
He concluded by warning that prolonged litigation in party disputes could affect political stability and electoral processes if not properly managed within legal timelines.
