• PDP, LP, ADC, NNPP trapped in cycles of leadership litigation

• Why Section 84(14) fails to stem growing judicial intervention in party affairs

• How conflicting rulings deepen factional splits, weaken party structures

• APC sustains gain as instability drives governors, lawmakers to defect

• Voters sidelined amid drift from ballot democracy to bench democracy

Nigeria’s political parties are increasingly being reshaped by judges and court orders.

From national secretariats to state chapters of sundry opposition parties, court orders have become decisive tools in determining who occupies key party offices: chairmen, secretaries and even entire executive committees.

What was once an extraordinary intervention has become routine, exposing deep fractures within the country’s political platforms and redefining power struggles ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Across the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party (LP), African Democratic Congress (ADC) and New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), prolonged leadership disputes have dragged the judiciary into the heart of party administration.

While the courts insist they are merely interpreting party constitutions and electoral laws, critics argue that the growing judicialisation of party politics reflects the collapse of internal democracy, weak conflict-resolution mechanisms, the dominance of elite interests over collective decision-making and the overarching decimation of the power of opposition.

This development, however, appears to contradict the spirit of Section 84(14) of the 2022 Electoral Act, which provides that: “Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or FCT, for redress.”

The provision was designed as a deliberate restraint on judicial overreach into the internal affairs of political parties. By limiting access to the courts strictly to aspirants who participated in party primaries and are challenging non-compliance in the nomination of candidates, the law sought to draw a clear line between justiciable pre-election disputes and matters meant to be resolved internally.

In effect, Section 84(14) was crafted to insulate party leadership tussles, congress disputes and factional rivalries from routine judicial intervention. Its intent was unambiguous: courts were not meant to become arbiters of who controls party secretariats, chairs national working committees or constitutes the “authentic” leadership of a political party. Those questions, the law implied, belong to the political domain and should be settled through internal mechanisms—party constitutions, conventions and reconciliation processes.

Yet, in practice, this legislative restraint has proved largely aspirational. Internal party crises continue to migrate from ward meetings to courtrooms, from reconciliation panels to injunctions, and from political negotiation to judicial fiat.

Parties such as the PDP, LP, NNPP and ADC have become trapped in cycles of litigation over leadership legitimacy, congress outcomes and control of party machinery—disputes far removed from the narrow scope envisaged under Section 84(14).

What was intended as a safeguard against the judicialisation of party politics has paradoxically coexisted with an era in which courts increasingly sit at the centre of internal power struggles. Ex parte orders, conflicting judgments and prolonged interlocutory battles have often entrenched factional divisions rather than resolved them.

As a result, parties approach election cycles weakened, fragmented and distracted, while the judiciary is drawn deeper into political controversies it was statutorily advised to avoid.

Although Section 84(14) narrows judicial access, political actors have widened it through litigation tactics, and courts, relying on constitutional rights, contractual principles and equitable jurisdiction, have frequently obliged.

Ironically, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that internal party disputes, including leadership and officer tenure, fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

In the April 2025 Labour Party leadership case and Senator Anyanwu v. Aniagwu & 3 Ors., involving the PDP, the court held that such matters must be resolved through party constitutions, unless a direct personal right is violated.

Legal commentary underscores that the judiciary will not “micromanage” political parties, and that courts generally cannot intervene in membership or leadership conflicts without explicit statutory authority.

PDP and national secretaryship crisis

Nowhere is this crisis more pronounced than in the Peoples Democratic Party, once Nigeria’s most dominant political platform. The protracted dispute over the position of National Secretary has divided the party’s National Working Committee (NWC) and polarised governors, lawmakers and state chapters.

Conflicting court rulings, suspensions, counter-suspensions and rival claims to legitimacy have plunged the party into near-permanent uncertainty.

For months, the PDP has operated under a cloud of legal ambiguity, with unresolved questions over who has the authority to issue notices, conduct congresses or sign nomination documents.

Matters worsened with the recent ruling of the Federal High Court in Ibadan, Oyo State, where Justice Uche Agomoh nullified the PDP’s national convention held on November 15 and 16, 2025, and recognised the caretaker committee led by Abdulrahman and Samuel Anyanwu of the Nyesom Wike faction as the party’s legitimate NWC.

The decision further polarised the party. Reports indicate that the PDP is currently entangled in several, likely more than half a dozen, distinct legal actions across multiple courts. These include challenges to leadership legitimacy, disputes over the validity of conventions, injunction suits involving the Independent National Electoral Commission, and appeals arising from conflicting rulings.

The consequences have been tangible. Several governors, senators and members of the House of Representatives, citing instability and uncertainty within the PDP, have defected to the All Progressives Congress or openly weighed the option. For many politicians, remaining in a party whose leadership could be overturned by a court order on the eve of primaries is considered a political gamble.

In Ekiti State, the uncertainty forced INEC to delist the PDP’s governorship candidate ahead of the scheduled July election. In Osun State, Governor Ademola Adeleke, elected on the PDP platform in 2022, has since defected to the Accord Party, citing unresolved legal battles and the cloud of uncertainty surrounding the party’s leadership.

LP’s judicial embarrassment

If the PDP’s crisis is troubling, the situation in the Labour Party appears even more embarrassing—both to democratic principles and to the patience of party members and voters.

Recently, the Independent National Electoral Commission updated its website to list LP officials as follows: National Chairman, Nenadi Usman (by court order); National Secretary, Darlington Nwokocha (by court order); and National Treasurer, Hamisu Turaki (by court order).

Since the 2023 elections, the LP has been engulfed in national leadership tussles, resulting in parallel executives, multiple court cases, and bitter recriminations. Competing factions have repeatedly sought judicial validation, effectively turning the courts into arbiters of internal legitimacy.

What began as a struggle for party control has evolved into a full-blown crisis, undermining the LP’s capacity to function as a coherent opposition platform.

State chapters remain divided, lawmakers are uncertain which faction to align with, and prospective aspirants are confused about which leadership INEC will ultimately recognise.

Political observers argue that the party’s reliance on litigation, rather than internal reconciliation, has slowed its institutional development and dampened public enthusiasm. For elected officials who rode the LP wave into office in 2023, the instability has raised questions about political survival. Some have quietly returned to the All Progressives Congress, while others maintain informal alliances, wary of being stranded in a party weakened by endless court battles.

ADC, NNPP and fragile opposition structures

Smaller opposition platforms such as the African Democratic Congress and the New Nigeria Peoples Party are not immune. The ADC, often touted as a potential coalition vehicle ahead of 2027, continues to grapple with leadership control and organisational coherence.

Despite projecting itself as an alternative to both the All Progressives Congress and the Peoples Democratic Party, unresolved disputes and the absence of a firm national structure have limited its appeal to sitting governors and lawmakers seeking certainty.

The NNPP, despite its strong regional identity and association with Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, has also faced internal strains.

Disputes over party control, candidate selection and post-election direction have triggered defections, particularly outside its core strongholds. The party’s only governor, Abba Yusuf, has defected to the APC.

As with other opposition parties, the spectre of court intervention continues to loom over its internal processes.

Against this backdrop of fragmentation, the All Progressives Congress has emerged as the major beneficiary. For governors and National Assembly members, the ruling party offers what opposition platforms increasingly lack: structural clarity, institutional backing and political protection. Although not immune to internal tensions, the APC has largely managed disputes through political accommodation rather than prolonged litigation.

Defections, therefore, are driven less by ideology than by stability and access. With court orders capable of upending party leadership overnight, many politicians see alignment with the APC as a safer route to political survival and re-election in 2027. The party’s growing dominance is thus not only a function of federal power, but also a reflection of the opposition’s inability to manage internal affairs without judicial intervention.

Some have alleged that the ruling APC is behind the crises in opposition parties, using the courts to keep them perpetually weakened.

Why internal party crises keep ending up in court

Explaining why unresolved leadership crises push political parties to the courts, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Usman Sule, said internal disputes often arise when parties fail to operate in line with their constitutions.

According to him, resorting to litigation becomes inevitable when internal mechanisms collapse, making the courts the “last hope” for aggrieved factions.

Sule noted that political parties are supreme over their internal affairs and that courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions made in accordance with party rules. He added that the choice of candidates remains the exclusive preserve of political parties and is non-justiciable, provided due process is followed.

A Lagos-based lawyer, Yemi Omodele, however, said the frequent judicial intervention in party affairs reflects Nigeria’s lingering colonial mentality across politics and other sectors.

Omodele attributed persistent party crises to politicians’ greed, their desperation to remain in power, and the abuse of judicial processes, including the filing of multiple suits in different divisions to secure favourable outcomes.

He warned that excessive litigation could undermine democracy, stressing that governance should be determined by the electorate, not the courts. He added that judicially determined outcomes may discourage voter participation, as election results obtained through litigation often differ from the people’s expectations.

With expectations high ahead of the 2027 general elections, he cautioned that unresolved internal party crises and post-election litigation could undermine the prospects of some parties.

Similarly, human rights activist Kabir Akingbolu blamed politicians, not the judiciary, for the growing trend of court rulings arising from internal party disputes.

An elections operations consultant, Oluwole Aguda, said the frequent crises affecting Nigeria’s major political parties can largely be traced to the loss of incumbency, which often weakens central authority and fuels unchecked ambitions.

According to him, “In the absence of clear leadership, party actors pursue personal interests, frequently disregarding party rules. At the core of these conflicts is the struggle for control of party structures, largely for negotiation and bargaining advantages.”

He said ego-driven ambitions have also encouraged endless litigation, with politicians increasingly seeking judicial backing. While resorting to the courts is preferable to violence, he said it reflects low political maturity and weak institutional culture.

He added that many politicians still prioritise personal power over building strong, rule-based institutions. “Party instability is most common where power is within reach, as self-interest undermines internal regulation. Chaos within parties hampers organisation, planning and electoral success, a reality that will shape outcomes in 2027. Ultimately, party members share responsibility for leadership failures, as passive followership enables poor leadership to thrive,” he said.