The recent judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja may have produced the first major casualty 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 the case of 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, describing the suit as frivolous and non-justiciable.
Justice Abdulmalik held that the dispute arose strictly from the internal congress and nomination process 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 no allegation or sufficient proof of any breach of the Nigerian Constitution, the Electoral Act, or the party’s constitution and guidelines that would justify judicial intervention.
Legal observers say the ruling further strengthens Nigeria’s long-established judicial position that candidate nomination and internal party affairs are largely domestic matters beyond court interference except where statutory violations are clearly established.
The principle had earlier been affirmed in landmark Supreme Court authorities including Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) and Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003), both of which established that courts generally lack jurisdiction over purely internal political disputes involving party nominations.
However, analysts note that the Electoral Act 2026 appears to have gone further by expressly limiting judicial interference while introducing possible punitive consequences for litigants and counsel who institute actions considered legally unsustainable.
The judgment is also drawing attention because of the substantial financial penalties imposed not only on the litigant but also directly on counsel, signaling a growing judicial intolerance for what courts perceive as speculative or abusive pre-election litigation.
According to legal commentators, the decision carries three major implications for Nigeria’s evolving electoral jurisprudence.
First, it reinforces the doctrine that political parties largely remain masters of their internal affairs.
Second, judicial intervention will only arise where there is a clear allegation and credible evidence of violations of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or duly adopted party regulations.
Third, legal practitioners handling pre-election matters may now be required to exercise greater caution before filing suits relating to internal party disputes.
The ruling comes at a critical time as political parties across Nigeria conclude congresses and primaries ahead of the 2027 general elections, with several aggrieved aspirants already preparing legal challenges over alleged exclusion and nomination disputes.
Observers believe the Abdulmalik decision may now serve as a strong warning that frivolous political litigation could attract serious financial consequences under the Electoral Act 2026.
Legal experts also anticipate that the matter could proceed to the appellate courts if the affected parties decide to challenge the ruling, a development that may ultimately provide further judicial clarity on the interpretation and scope of Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026.
For now, however, the decision stands as a major judicial statement on the limits of court interference in party politics and the growing risks attached to pre-election litigation.
The commentary was authored by M.O. Ubani, SAN, legal practitioner and policy analyst.
