The recent judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja may have marked the first major judicial application of Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026, following the dismissal of a suit challenging the internal congress of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
In Fubara Dagogo v. APC & 3 Ors., Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/591/2026, the court struck out the action filed by Mr. Fubara Dagogo and imposed punitive costs of ₦10 million each against both the plaintiff and his counsel, Chief Sir O.A.U. Onyema, for what the court described as a frivolous and non-justiciable suit.
Justice Abdulmalik held that the dispute arose purely from the internal congress and nomination processes of the political party and therefore fell outside the jurisdiction of the court pursuant to Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026.
According to the court, there was neither allegation nor proof of any breach of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or the party’s constitution and guidelines sufficient to justify judicial intervention.
Legal analysts note that the ruling reinforces long-established judicial authorities such as Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) and Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003), which firmly established that the nomination of candidates by political parties remains primarily an internal affair beyond judicial scrutiny except where statutory provisions have been violated.
However, observers say the Electoral Act 2026 appears to have strengthened that doctrine by expressly limiting court interference while attaching possible punitive consequences to improperly instituted political suits.
The judgment is particularly attracting national attention because of the substantial financial penalties imposed not only on the litigant but also directly on counsel, signaling a tougher judicial posture against speculative or abusive pre-election litigation.
Legal commentators believe the significance of the decision is threefold.
First, it reaffirms the settled principle that the internal affairs of political parties remain an area of limited judicial interference.
Second, courts will only intervene where there is a clear allegation and credible proof of violations of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or duly adopted party regulations.
Third, counsel handling pre-election disputes may now be compelled to exercise greater caution in evaluating the legal sustainability of intended actions before approaching the courts.
The ruling strongly suggests that while Onuoha v. Okafor remains good law, Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026 may have now provided stronger statutory backing for the doctrine while introducing punitive implications for frivolous political litigation.
As party primaries gradually conclude across Nigeria ahead of the 2027 general elections, several aggrieved aspirants are reportedly preparing legal challenges over alleged exclusion and failed nominations.
The Abdulmalik decision may therefore serve as an important warning to litigants and counsel alike that there could now be serious financial consequences for suits deemed legally unsustainable or improperly instituted.
Legal observers also expect that the appellate courts may eventually provide further judicial clarity on the interpretation and scope of Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026 should the affected parties proceed on appeal.
Until then, the judgment stands as a strong judicial reminder that political disagreements rooted strictly in internal party administration may remain outside the reach of judicial intervention.
The legal commentary was authored by M.O. Ubani, SAN, legal practitioner and policy analyst.
