The First Major Casualty of Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026 May Have Emerged

The recent decision of the Federal High Court in Fubara Dagogo v. All Progressives Congress (APC) & 3 Ors., Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/591/2026 delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, represents a significant development in Nigeria’s pre-election jurisprudence. In that case, the court struck out the suit challenging the APC National Congress and proceeded to award punitive costs of ₦10 million each against the plaintiff, Mr. Fubara Dagogo, and his counsel, Chief Sir O.A.U. Onyema, for what the court considered a frivolous and non-justiciable action.

The court 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 by virtue of Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026.

 Justice Abdulmalik maintained that there was no allegation or proof of any breach of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or the party’s constitution and guidelines capable of warranting judicial intervention.

This principle is not entirely novel. The locus classicus decisions in Onuoha v. Okafor(1983) 2 SCNLR 244 and Dalhatu v. Turaki(2003) 15 NWLR(Pt. 843) 310 firmly established that the nomination of candidates by political parties is primarily an internal affair beyond judicial scrutiny, except where statutory provisions are violated. The Electoral Act 2026 appears to have further reinforced that jurisprudence by expressly limiting court interference while attaching punitive consequences to improperly instituted actions.

It is also important to note that the imposition of punitive costs against counsel for frivolous litigation has judicial precedent. Nigerian courts have repeatedly awarded substantial costs to discourage abuse of court process and speculative political litigation. In several electoral cases involving major political parties, the courts have consistently warned against the misuse of judicial time through non-justiciable political disputes.

However, the Abdulmalik decision appears to be one of the earliest notable applications of the Electoral Act 2026 provisions specifically targeting needless interference in internal party affairs while imposing direct financial consequences on both litigants and counsel.

The significance of the decision is threefold.

First, it reinforces the settled principle that the internal affairs of political parties remain an area of limited judicial interference.

Second, the courts will only intervene where there is a clear allegation and credible proof of breach of the Constitution, the Electoral Act, or validly adopted party regulations.

Third, counsel handling pre-election matters must now exercise greater caution in evaluating the legal sustainability of intended actions before approaching the court.

The decision strongly suggests that while Onuoha v. Okafor remains good law, the Electoral Act 2026 may have strengthened the doctrine with clearer statutory backing and possible punitive implications. Political parties remain substantial masters of their domestic affairs, and litigants as well as counsel who attempt to convert purely internal political disagreements into judicial contests may increasingly face serious financial consequences.

As party primaries draw to a close in Nigeria, many aggrieved aspirants are already preparing to approach the courts over alleged exclusion or failed nominations. This latest decision should therefore serve as an important cautionary guide to prospective litigants and counsel alike that there may now be tangible consequences for suits the law regards as improperly instituted.

The writer intends to follow developments in this matter closely, particularly whether the affected parties will comply with the order on costs or seek appellate review of the decision.

Ultimately, the appellate courts may yet provide further clarity on the proper scope and application of Section 83 of the Electoral Act 2026 if the aggrieved party appeals.  Until then, prudence demands careful legal evaluation before inviting judicial intervention in matters that may remain fundamentally political and internal to party administration.

A word, they say, is enough for the wise.

M.O. Ubani, SAN

Legal Practitioner/Policy Analyst.