NBA’s Endorsement Of Section 83(5) Is Legally Flawed – Says Fiderikumo

Respected Port Harcourt based legal practitioner, Dr Doueyi Fiderikumo, has posited that the recent endorsement of Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act, 2026 by the Nigerian Bar Association is legally flawed and was not properly considered.

Throwing more light on the position, Fiderikumo stated, “For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing provision states that “no Court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.” The Electoral Act 2026 did not define what constitutes internal affairs of a political party”.

“It is now settled that no Act of the National Assembly or State Law can take away the jurisdiction vested in the Courts created by the Constitution. Such a law is unconstitutional, null and void. See OKULATE V. AWOSANYA (2000) LPELR (2529) (SC).”

“What the Constitution has given the Court, the National Assembly cannot take away through a legislation, save through an amendment of the Constitution. This position is elementary and cannot admit of any reasonable counter argument. It has thus been held that “Any power given by the Constitution, cannot therefore be taken away by any Act of National Assembly or Law of a state or a subsidiary legislation” See Per BELGORE, J.S.C in FRN v. OSAHON & ORS (2006) LPELR-3174(SC) (Pp. 27 paras. A)”

“Right from the 1983 Supreme Court case of ONOUHA V. OKAFOR (1983) 2 SCNLR 244; up to its recent decision in ANYANWU V. EMMANUEL & ORS (2025) LPELR-80882(SC), the apex Court has consistently held that while internal matters of a political party are generally non-justiciable, the Court will have jurisdiction to hear and determine a case bordering on the internal affairs of a political party where the question in the case involves the COMMISSION OF A CRIME OR AN ALLEGATION OF A TORT OR INVOLVES THE VIOLATION OF A CONTRACTUAL RIGHT OR WHERE THE CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE EXPRESSLY VESTS THE COURT WITH JURISDICTION TO DO SO.”

“The jurisdiction of a Court to hear and determine a case presented to it, is not determined in a vacuum. It involves a consideration of the law establishing the Court and the case nominated by the person approaching the Court. “Jurisdiction is a very hard matter of law which is donated by the Constitution and the enabling statute. It is also a very sensitive matter in the judicial process. Considering its very hard and sensitive nature, Courts of law must always bow to the provisions of the Constitution”. See Per TOBI, J.S.C in OBASANJO & ORS V. YUSUF & ANOR (2004) LPELR-2151(SC).”

“The instances which have been mentioned above and which the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain, even where they border on the internal affairs of a political party are part of judicial powers under section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution as amended and cannot be taken away by an Act of the National Assembly or law of a State House of Assembly. Ouster clauses in statute in a constitutional order have consistently been struck down by the Courts.”

“In the light of Okulate (supra), it is reasonably foreseeable that soon and indeed very soon section 83(5) of the Electoral Act, 2026 will be decimated by the Court. It may well happen in Bala’s case. We wait and see.”