MAGAJI V. A.P.C. (2024) 1 NWLR (PT. 1918) 1
ON NATURE OF POLITICAL PARTY AND WHEN COURT CAN INTERFERE IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTY
A party is like a club. It has its own rules, regulation, guidelines, and constitution. Members join the party on their own free will. By joining, they freely give their consent to be bound by the rules, regulation, guidelines and constitution of the party. The rules of the party must be obeyed by all members of the party, as the party’s decision is final over its own affairs. Members of a party need to understand and appreciate the finality of a party’s decision over its domestic or internal affairs. The court would only interfere where the party has violated its own rules. [Agi v. P.D.P. (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386; Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244 referred to (Pp. 41-42, paras. G-B).
MAGAJI V. A.P.C. (2024) 1 NWLR (PT. 1918) 1
ON WHEN INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTY ARE JUSTICIABLE
The internal affairs of a political party are not justiciable and therefore not within the court’s jurisdiction except where the Constitution or a statute expressly gives a court such jurisdiction, or where the dispute is about the commission of a crime, or involves the violation of a contractual right, or the commission of a tort. [Osagie v. P.D.P (2023)5 NWLR (Pt. 1877) 355; Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2SCNLR 244; Aguma v. A.P.C. (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt.1796) 351 referred to.] (P. 41, paras. E-G).
MAGAJI V. A.P.C. (2024) 1 NWLR (PT. 1918) 1
ON DUTY ON POLITICAL PARTY THAT ADOPTS SYSTEM OF INDIRECT PRIMARIES
By virtue of section 84(8) of the Electoral Act, 2022, a political party that adopts the system of indirect primaries for the choice of its candidate shall clearly outline in its constitution and rule of procedure for the democratic election of delegates to vote at the convention, congress or meeting. In the instant case, the appellant complained about the nomination of a candidate in an election he participated in, on the grounds that the ad-hoc ward delegates who voted at the election were not the democratically elected delegates or that delegates list had been tampered with contrary to the guidelines of the 1st respondent. In the circumstance, there exists a cause of action by virtue of section 84(8) of the Electoral Act 2022. (P. 35, paras. C-F).
AHIWE V.I.N.E.C. (2024) 6 NWLR (PT. 1935) 437
ON WHETHER PROCEDURE BY WHICH POLITICAL PARTY DECIDED TO SPONSOR ITS MEMBER AS CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION AS GOVERNOR OF A STATE IS JUSTICIABLE
Section 177(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which provides that a person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party, does not provide for consideration of how a political party arrives at the decision to sponsor a person as its candidate or the validity of the decision to sponsor or the validity of the sponsorship itself. The fact that a political party sponsored its member as its governorship candidate for the general election makes such a person automatically qualified for election to the office of Governor of the State. (P. 468, paras. E-G).
AHIWE V.I.N.E.C. (2024) 6 NWLR (PT. 1935) 437
ON WHETHER COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE ISSUE OF MEMBERSHIP OF POLITICAL PARTY
It is the prerogative of a political party to determine who its members are. In other words, membership of a political party is a matter that is strictly within the domestic affairs of a political party and the courts have no jurisdiction to determine who the members of a political party are. In this case, the tribunal and the Court of Appeal rightly so decided. [Anyanwu v. Ogunewe (2014) 8 NWLR (Pt.1410) 437; Udofia v. Enang (2023) LPELR 59447; Abdullahi v. Argungu (2023) 11 NWLR (Pt.1895).
SANGA V. A.P.C. [2024] 9 NWLR (PT. 1944) 555
ON ESSENCE OF AND GUIDE TO CONSTRUCTION OF GUIDELINES OF POLITICAL PARTY FOR CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES
The guidelines made by a political party pursuant to its Constitution and issued by its National Executive Committee for the conduct of its primary election must be given generous and purposive interpretation. The intent and purpose of the guidelines of the 1st respondent is to ensure that elections are conducted and concluded within a reasonable time and smoothly. It is not such that when a political party fails to start its accreditation exactly at 8:00am and end it by 12:00pm, the accreditation becomes a nullity and therefore affects the outcome of the primary election conducted. An interpretation that seeks to enthrone such a meaning would be absurd and certainly open the floodgates of frivolous pre-election disputes. The only way by which paragraph 26(j) of the 1st respondent’s guidelines is capable of nullifying its primary election is when it has been sufficiently proved that the votes cast exceed the number of accredited voters, which was not the case of the appellants in the instant case. In the circumstances, the non-compliance with the timeline was without any consequence and the court could not import into the guidelines any consequence that was not contemplated by the 1st respondent when drafting them [Uzodinma v. Izunaso (No. 1) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1275) 28 referred to.] (P. 574, paras. A-H.
IFEANYI V.I.N.E.C. [2024]10 NWLR (1946) 243 (SC)
ON WHETHER COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN ISSUE OF MEMBERSHIP OF POLITICAL PARTY
Membership of a political party is a matter that is strictly within the domestic affairs of a political party and the courts have no jurisdiction to determine who the members of a political party are. It is not justiciable. The choice of candidates for elective offices is a political issue and it is governed by the rules, guidelines, and Constitution of the political party concerned. It is a matter of internal affairs of the political party concerned. It is not to be questioned before any court as it is non-justiciable. A court thus has no jurisdiction to determine who a political party should sponsor. Nomination or sponsorship of a candidate for election is a political matter solely within the discretion of the party. This is because, the sponsorship or nomination of a candidate is a pre-primary election affair of the party. Thus, the issue of nomination and sponsorship of a candidate for an election is exclusively within the domestic or internal affairs of a political party which a court cannot interfere, unless a complaint is lodged against his nomination pursuant to section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution and section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act, 2022. [Enang v. Asuquo (2023)11 NWLR (Pt. 1896) 501; P.D.P. v. Lawal (2023) 12NWLR (Pt. 1898) 205; Pali v. Abdu (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1665) 320 referred to.] (Pp. 276, paras. B-F;294, paras. C-