2027: Disputes Erupt Over Judiciary's Influence in Pre-Election Disputes

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, given that political parties must conduct internal primaries to select their candidates for the contest before every general election in Nigeria.

n

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, and the judiciary is charged with resolving disputes arising before, during, or from the process.

n

Unfortunately, election litigation has become an inevitable aspect of the electoral process in the country, and this unbridled recourse to democracy-by-court-order continues to place the judiciary in the eye of the storm.

n

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, and the judiciary appears to be gradually metamorphosing from a neutral arbiter into a critical player on the political stage.

n

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.

n

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.

n

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.

n

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, and he urged judges to be wary in handling all cases, especially those concerning political parties and the upcoming general elections.

n

He emphasized that the judiciary remains the hope of all people, and it is essential to use the court and the constitution to regulate society for the good of all, while also acknowledging that actions or inactions by a judge can be misinterpreted.

n

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, and 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”.

n

The NBA pleaded with judges to always keep in mind the weighty responsibilities that rest on their shoulders, and to continually save the nation from itself and maintain peace, unity, and cohesion as one nation through their pronouncements.

n

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, and all the aforementioned admonishers have exited the stage, yet the macabre dance of the extant judicial actors continues to kick up dust.

n

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.

n

The NBA said it has closely monitored recent political and legal developments ahead of the 2027 general elections, and these developments raise serious constitutional, democratic, and rule-of-law concerns that require immediate intervention.

n

The association deprecates 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.’

n

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.’

n

What the NBA now sees 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.

n

This does not augur well for democracy, as democracy will not thrive in a situation where lawyers and courts take actions and decisions that not only negate the laws but also do violence to them.

n

The 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 democracy.

n

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.

n

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.

n

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.

n

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, and the NBA will take firm steps to deter such conduct.

n

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.

n

The Nigerian judiciary must stay vigilant and resist being drawn into political theatrics, and courts should firmly decline invitations, no matter how artfully crafted, to intervene in matters the law explicitly bars them from.

n

When statutes limit judicial meddling in party affairs, judges must show restraint, adhere to the law, and focus on cases properly before them, and the NBA calls on the National Judicial Council to make regulations that will sanction any judge who knowingly assumes jurisdiction in matters clearly barred by law.

n

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.

n

The NBA will not hesitate to activate its constitutional responsibility to protect the integrity of the justice system, and 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.

n

The courts must remain arbiters of justice, not instruments of political advantage, and 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.

n

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.

n

The nation looks to the courts for clarity and balance at such critical moments, and this court has a crucial role to play in pre-election dispute resolution, with conflicting interim orders, forum shopping, and the abuse of ex parte processes undermining the credibility of the entire justice system and weakening public confidence.

n

Heads of Divisions must therefore enforce procedural discipline firmly and fairly, and the judiciary must never be perceived as a theatre for political gamesmanship; it must remain a sanctuary of constitutional order.

n

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”, and he insisted, however, that the court had done well despite some of the challenges it faces, among which he cited the issue of funding.

n

One crucial issue which must be addressed is adequate funding for the effective functioning of the judiciary, and the court 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.

n

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.

n

In recent times, the NBA has 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.

n

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