TDThe recent Supreme Court rulings on the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have set another controversial precedent and reignited debate about the limits of judicial intervention in political party affairs.
While the apex court affirmed David Mark’s leadership of the ADC and voided the controversial status quo ante bellum order of the Court of Appeal, it simultaneously contradicted its own binding precedent that internal party disputes are not justiciable in court.
This inconsistency undermines both the rule of law and the autonomy of political parties.
The Principle of Non-Justiciability
On March 21, 2025, the Supreme Court in Anyanwu v. PDP made it clear: internal political party affairs fall outside judicial jurisdiction.
Justice Jamilu Tukur emphasized that such matters must be resolved through party constitutions, conventions, or arbitration panels—not through litigation.
This ruling was meant to protect party autonomy and prevent courts from becoming battlegrounds for factional struggles.
It was hailed as a landmark decision that would strengthen democracy by ensuring parties manage their own internal conflicts.
The principle established was clear: internal political party affairs, including leadership disputes, are not justiciable in court.
The ADC Case and Judicial Contradiction
Yet, in the ADC case, the same Supreme Court reinstated David Mark’s leadership, effectively adjudicating an internal dispute.
While the Court rightly set aside the Court of Appeal’s preservatory order, its decision to restore leadership contradicts its earlier principle.
If internal disputes are not justiciable, then the apex court should have quashed all ongoing cases and directed parties to resolve matters internally.
Instead, by intervening, the Court blurred the line between constitutional oversight and political interference, creating confusion about the scope of judicial authority.
INEC’s Controversial Role
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) compounded the crisis by removing ADC leadership names from its portal and suspending recognition of the party’s executives.
This action exceeded INEC’s constitutional mandate, which is limited to monitoring compliance with electoral laws.
By freezing party operations, INEC effectively inserted itself into an internal dispute, undermining neutrality and contradicting Supreme Court precedent.
Although INEC later restored David Mark’s leadership, its initial intervention highlighted the dangers of administrative overreach and the fragility of Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
Implications for PDP
The PDP has faced similar judicial entanglements.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in its leadership disputes, despite its own ruling on non-justiciability, has destabilized the party and created confusion.
Leadership battles that should be resolved through conventions and internal mechanisms have instead been dragged through courts, weakening party cohesion and distracting from electoral preparation.
This judicial inconsistency risks turning political parties into perpetual litigants rather than democratic institutions.
Democratic Consequences
These contradictions have grave implications for Nigerian democracy:
- For Political Parties: Leadership disputes must be resolved internally. Courts cannot be used to settle factional battles.
- For INEC: The Commission must respect party autonomy and avoid meddling in disputes.
- For Democracy: Judicial inconsistency erodes trust in institutions, while INEC’s overreach risks setting dangerous precedents.
The Way Forward
Nigeria’s democracy cannot thrive if courts and electoral bodies continue to interfere in internal party affairs.
The Supreme Court must uphold its own precedent and refrain from adjudicating disputes that are purely political.
INEC must realign its actions with constitutional boundaries, ensuring neutrality and respect for party independence.
The expected judgment in such cases should be straightforward:
“Quash all ongoing suits, declare internal disputes non-justiciable, and direct parties to resolve matters amicably. Anything less is judicial fraud and a betrayal of democratic principles.”
In my respected opinion, Supreme Court threw the judgment to the face of the ADC and PDP in order to blackmail them against any future ruling it may give that may not be in their favour.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s contradictory rulings on ADC and PDP expose a troubling inconsistency in Nigeria’s judicial approach to political party affairs.
By intervening where it previously declared no jurisdiction, the Court undermines its credibility and destabilizes party structures.
INEC’s actions further complicate matters, risking democratic integrity.
For Nigeria to progress, both institutions must respect the principle of non-justiciability, allowing parties to govern themselves.
Until then, democracy will remain fragile, vulnerable to judicial overreach and administrative impunity.
