2027: Rumbles over courts’ role in pre-election squabbles

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

The next few months will undoubtedly be a very busy period for the judiciary, as many courts will be flooded with suits relating to pre-election matters.
Before every general election in Nigeria, political parties must conduct internal primaries to select their candidates for the contest.
This often leads to a plethora of disputes over candidates’ qualification, disqualification, nomination, substitution, and sponsorship in the run-up to general elections.
Whereas the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is responsible for conducting and managing elections, the judiciary is charged with resolving disputes arising before, during, or from the process.
Unfortunately, election litigation has become an inevitable aspect of the electoral process in the country.
This unbridled recourse to democracy-by-court-order continues to place the judiciary in the eye of the storm.
So much so that the immediate past Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Olukayode Ariwoola, in 2023 described the country as one of the world’s most litigious countries.
However, the judiciary appears to be gradually metamorphosing from a neutral arbiter into a critical player on the political stage.
Prior to the 2011 general elections, the then INEC Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega, wrote to the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, urging him to prevail on judges to stop granting spurious ex parte orders to aggrieved aspirants.
In the letter, which he copied to the National Judicial Council (NJC), Prof. Jega decried how the electoral body was often served with conflicting ex parte orders from courts of coordinate jurisdiction, restraining it from accepting and recognising candidates nominated by some political parties.
Determined to forestall such a scenario in the 2019 general elections, the then Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Adamu Abdul-Kafarati, in a legal directive, barred judges of the court from granting ex parte orders in political cases.
The former CJ, who made the directive public on September 17, 2018, while flagging off the new legal year of the court, further directed that interim ex parte orders should not be granted in political cases brought before the court.
“I urge your Lordships to be wary in handling all cases, and especially cases concerning political parties and the upcoming general elections. We should again use this court and the constitution to regulate our society for the good of our children and mankind.
“I still believe that the judiciary remains the hope of all people, whether common or uncommon.
“It is important that extra care is taken in handling these political cases because of their nature. Actions or inactions by a judge, no matter how honestly done, are capable of misinterpretation.
“It is therefore necessary and important that we guard our loins in order not to be caught unawares,” Justice Abdul-Kafarati added.
The directive became necessary considering the fact that the bulk of pre-election and post-election matters are adjudicated upon by Federal High Court judges.
Within the same period, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), through its then President, Mr. Paul Usoro, SAN, implored judges not to allow themselves and their courts to be dragged into the “murky waters of politics” and, in the process, embarrass the justice sector.
“As we go into another season of elections with its attendant contentions and cases, we respectfully urge Your Lordships to always keep in mind the weighty responsibilities that rest on Your Lordships’ shoulders.
“Through Your Lordships’ pronouncements, you continually save us from ourselves and, in no small measure, assist in maintaining the peace, unifying, and welding us together as one nation,” the NBA pleaded.
Over eight years after this admonition was made, ugly narratives from courts appear to be dominating the media space again as the country inches closer to its general election cycle.
All the aforementioned admonishers have exited the stage, yet the macabre dance of the extant judicial actors continues to kick up dust.
Perturbed by courts’ perceived descent into the political arena, the NBA warned on March 10, 2026—in a statement titled: Our Laws and Democracy Must Be Protected at All Times—that the judiciary must stay vigilant and resist being drawn into political theatrics.
The NBA said it has closely monitored recent political and legal developments ahead of the 2027 general elections.
“These developments, particularly those arising from the interpretation and potential application of provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, raise serious constitutional, democratic, and rule-of-law concerns that require immediate intervention.
“We particularly deprecate the disturbing involvement by lawyers and courts in the internal affairs of political parties despite the clear provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which stipulates in Section 83 of the Act that ‘No court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.’
“Not only are courts denied jurisdiction to entertain any matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party, but they are also precluded from granting any interim or interlocutory injunction even where any action has been brought in violation of the Act.
“The section further provides that ‘Where such an action is brought in negation of this provision, no interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained by the Court, but the Court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment and shall give accelerated hearing to the matter.’
“What we now see are situations where actions are not only instituted in courts by lawyers in clear violation of the Act, but courts purportedly grant interim and/or interlocutory injunctions in clear contempt of statutory provisions of the law.
“This does not augur well for our democracy. Democracy will not thrive in a situation where lawyers and courts take actions and decisions that not only negate our laws but also do violence to them.
“This emerging trend of subverting the clear letters of the Electoral Act and dragging courts into the internal affairs of political parties through disingenuous litigation, forum shopping, and malafide applications designed to secure undemocratic political advantage, bodes no good for our democracy.
“Such practices, if not immediately curbed, would directly contradict the clear intendment of the Electoral Act and risk transforming the judicial processes into avenues for political score-settling or electoral manipulation.
“We must reiterate that these provisions were clearly designed to curb abuse of court processes and discourage forum shopping in political disputes. This is therefore why the NBA is concerned that the abuse, misapplication, or selective deployment of these provisions may create opportunities for manipulation capable of undermining democratic competition and shrinking the political space,” the NBA added in a statement signed by its President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN.
While reminding members of the Bar that they are Ministers in the Temple of Justice and not political agents seeking judicial endorsement of partisan objectives, the NBA vowed to initiate action against lawyers drawing courts into the filthy waters of politics.
“The filing of actions intended to draw courts into internal political party disputes, particularly where jurisdiction is expressly excluded, constitutes an abuse of court process and a violation of professional responsibility.
“The NBA will take firm steps to deter such conduct. Lawyers who deliberately file actions aimed at procuring judicial interference in intra-party affairs, or who seek ex parte or interlocutory orders in clear violation of statutory provisions, risk facing disciplinary proceedings.
“The Nigerian judiciary must stay vigilant and resist being drawn into political theatrics. Courts should firmly decline invitations, no matter how artfully crafted, to intervene in matters the law explicitly bars them from. When statutes limit judicial meddling in party affairs, judges must show restraint, adhere to the law, and focus on cases properly before them.
“We call on the National Judicial Council to make regulations that will sanction any judge who knowingly assumes jurisdiction in matters clearly barred by law, grants orders in respect of intra-party disputes in violation of statutory provisions, or lends the authority of the court to partisan political maneuvering.
“The NBA will not shy away from drawing the NJC’s attention to the actions of any judicial officer found to have acted in a manner inconsistent with the judicial oath, constitutional responsibilities, and the preservation of public confidence in the courts. The NBA will not hesitate to activate its constitutional responsibility to protect the integrity of the justice system.
“The Bar will deploy all lawful mechanisms, engagement, advisory opinions, strategic litigation, and disciplinary processes, to ensure that lawyers do not weaponize the legal process so that the judiciary is not misused.
“The courts must remain arbiters of justice, not instruments of political advantage,” the association further stated.
Earlier, on December 15, 2025, the incumbent CJN, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, noted that as the nation looks ahead to the 2027 general elections, the judiciary will once again be called upon to play a stabilising national role.

While declaring the 2025/2026 Legal Year of the Federal High Court and the 41st Annual Judges’ Conference open, the CJN warned that election-related disputes must be handled with discipline, consistency, and strict adherence to constitutional and statutory timelines.
She said: “The nation looks to the courts for clarity and balance at such critical moments. This court has a crucial role to play in pre-election dispute resolution. Conflicting interim orders, forum shopping, and the abuse of ex parte processes undermine the credibility of the entire justice system and weaken public confidence.
“Heads of Divisions must therefore enforce procedural discipline firmly and fairly. The judiciary must never be perceived as a theatre for political gamesmanship; it must remain a sanctuary of constitutional order,” she added.
At the same event, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, decried what he termed “spirited attempts to smear the image of the court, especially through contrived political cases.”
He insisted, however, that the court had done well despite some of the challenges it faces, among which he cited the issue of funding.
“One crucial issue which must be addressed is adequate funding for the effective functioning of the judiciary.
“We must advocate for increased budgetary allocation to ensure that the Federal High Court and the judiciary as a whole have the resources necessary to fulfil their mandates.”
Likewise, the NBA used the occasion to urge the judiciary to guard its independence with utmost vigilance, stressing that its authority rests not on force but on public confidence in its neutrality.
“In recent times, we have witnessed an unsettling trend in which political actors increasingly rush internal party disagreements, nomination disputes, leadership tussles, and other intra-party governance issues to the courts as strategic weapons.
“These disputes, which ought to be resolved through party constitutions, internal appeal processes, and political negotiation, appear not to be brought before the court for genuine adjudication, but for tactical advantage or the securing of court orders or judgments to secure political advantage.
“This practice not only lends the judiciary to perceptions or allegations of political involvement but threatens to drag the court into the center of partisan storms.
“As the Supreme Court cautioned in Military Governor, Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) JELR 51747 (SC), the judiciary ‘must remain blind to political colouration and partisan calculations’ if it is to preserve its moral authority.
“The idea that political cases should not be litigated is a core tenet of the ‘political question’ doctrine in law and the theory of political constitutionalism, which posits that certain decisions are better left to the political branches of government (legislative and executive) rather than the judiciary.
“In the case of PDP v. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85, the Supreme Court restated clearly that the right to nominate or sponsor a candidate for an elective position is a domestic right of a political party.
“It follows therefore that the issues of leadership and membership are internal affairs of a political party. In other words, it is not open for a court to inquire into the membership/leadership of a political party.
“It is therefore our understanding from many judicial pronouncements, including Ufomba v. INEC & Ors (2017) LPELR-42079 (SC), pp. 30-33, Paras. A-C (per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C.), that the court does not have jurisdiction to make appointments of persons to hold party offices, represent a party in elections, or to determine any dispute arising from the internal affairs of a political party.
“However, recent pronouncements from this court have left us uncertain as to the current position of the law on the principle of ‘political question’.
“This court must therefore continue to insist that its jurisdiction cannot be manipulated as a substitute for political will, party leadership, party discipline, or internal democracy.
“Not every quarrel within a political party is justifiable, and not every grievance constitutes a legal dispute.
“Judges must exercise prudent restraint to ensure that political actors do not convert this court into the first port of call for political strategy, rather than a forum for the resolution of genuine legal issues which the court has jurisdiction to entertain.
“Judicial resources are too limited and judicial symbolic authority too precious to be dissipated in matters that are, at their core, political questions.
“The court’s docket should not become a political theater or a staging ground for political leadership or factional dominance.
“As Justice Felix Frankfurter observed, ‘The court’s authority—possessed of neither the purse nor the sword—ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction.’
“To preserve this moral sanction, the court must continue to exercise scrutiny when asked to intervene in disputes that are fundamentally political, ensuring that its jurisdiction is not invoked to cloak partisan goals in judicial garments,” the NBA added.
As the clock ticks towards another round of elections, how well the judiciary will insulate itself from partisan politics remains to be seen.

The post 2027: Rumbles over courts’ role in pre-election squabbles appeared first on Vanguard News.