Aniefiok Christopher
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has raised alarm that the country’s democracy is heading towards a rock following violation of Electoral Act, 2026 (as amended) by courts and lawyers.
The NBA President, Afam Osigwe who raised the alarm is disappointed with the manner courts and lawyers subvert clear letters of the Act and drag the internal affairs of political parties to courts.
According to Osigwe, Section 83 of the Act provides “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.
Also read:
- NBA Shuts Akwa Ibom courts over High Court Judge’s abduction
- NBA Secures release of Lawyer detained by DSS for three years
- Presidential Clemency: Know some Grave Offenders as Atiku, ADC Shell Tinubu for pardoning them
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,’’ he stated.
He warned that ‘‘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.’’
He reiterated that the provisions were clearly designed to curb abuse of court processes and discourage forum shopping in political disputes.
‘‘The NBA, according to him, ‘‘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.’’
Status Quo Ante Bellum: Courts Should Make Clear Orders – Osigwe
In another development, the NBA President, Afam Osigwe, has urged courts to avoid the use of complex phrases in their rulings, calling instead for clear and unambiguous orders to prevent confusion and misinterpretation.
Osigwe made the call during an interview on Channels Television’s Politics Today programme on Friday, where he expressed concern over the growing ambiguity in judicial pronouncements, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
“I think, considering the confusion that is arising in our body polity in recent times, our courts should not make orders using such Latin maxims like status quo ante bellum or pendente lite.
“The court should make clear orders as to what it means so that there is no ambiguity. It (status quo ante bellum) creates confusion. We have rendered it almost meaningless.
“It has been stripped of any clear meaning, so our courts should avoid using such phrases and instead specify what orders they are making so that nobody will be left in doubt, and no administrative body will have to interpret it and try to give its own decision on it,” he stated.
Status quo ante bellum is a Latin phrase that means the situation as it existed before the war.
The NBA President further stated that vague court orders often led to multiple interpretations, with different parties claiming victory.
“I see situations where people go away rejoicing that the order was in their favour, thereby giving room for mischief or for anybody to interpret it the way they want.
“Where a court has chosen to make an order, it should state clearly what it has set out to do and not hide behind any Latin maxims,” Osigwe added.
According to him, while such legal expressions may not pose challenges in other jurisdictions, Nigeria’s peculiar environment makes their use confusing.
His remarks came amid controversy surrounding the interpretation of a Court of Appeal ruling involving a crisis in the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The court directed the parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum, but its interpretation sparked a dispute between the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and party factions.
INEC delisted the David Mark-national working committee from its portal, but the Mark faction rejected the decision, insisting its leadership represents the last legitimate structure.
The disagreement also led to protests by the factions at the INEC headquarters in Abuja.
In a separate demonstration on Thursday, another group leader of the party, Nafiu Gombe, also staged a protest at the commission’s office, demanding recognition as the authentic ADC national chairman.
