0
0
The recent ruling of the Katsina State High Court delivered by Hon. Justice A. K. Tukur on 14 April 2026 offers a striking lens through which to examine the growing tension between law, politics, and democracy in Nigeria. In that case, the court vacated its earlier ex-parte order and struck out the suit on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction, emphasizing that matters relating to the internal affairs of a political party fall outside the authority of the courts as provided by the Electoral Act. The decision was clear, direct, and rooted in a long-standing legal principle that political parties should manage their own internal disputes without judicial interference.
However, this position stands in sharp contrast to the ongoing leadership crisis involving Nafiu Bala and David Mark within the same political party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC). In that dispute, multiple courts, including the Federal High Court, Court of Appeal, and now the Supreme Court, have become deeply involved. Rather than declining jurisdiction outright, the Federal High Court chose to suspend proceedings pending the determination of related appeals, while higher courts continue to entertain aspects of the matter. This divergence in judicial approach raises serious concerns about consistency in the application of the law and the broader implications for Nigeria’s democratic system.
At the heart of both cases lies the same issue: internal party leadership and control. Yet, while one court firmly refused to adjudicate on such matters, another has allowed the dispute to evolve into a prolonged legal battle stretching across multiple levels of the judiciary. This inconsistency not only creates confusion but also opens the door to manipulation, as political actors may exploit the judicial system to legitimize their claims or frustrate their opponents. The result is a dangerous trend where courts are no longer seen merely as interpreters of the law but as arenas for political contestation.
The role of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) further complicates the situation. In the Bala and Mark dispute, INEC has been placed in a position where it must rely heavily on court pronouncements before recognizing party leadership. This dependence undermines its independence and weakens its capacity to act decisively based on party constitutions and established guidelines. When electoral bodies defer excessively to judicial outcomes, especially in matters that are fundamentally political, the line between law and politics becomes increasingly blurred.
While the judiciary has a constitutional duty to uphold justice and prevent illegality, its deepening involvement in internal party disputes risks eroding public confidence. Delays, conflicting rulings, and jurisdictional contradictions contribute to a perception that the courts can be influenced or used as tools in political struggles. Even in the absence of direct evidence of interference, such perceptions are damaging enough to weaken trust in democratic institutions.
The contrast between the Katsina ruling and the Bala versus Mark case ultimately reflects a broader crisis within Nigeria’s democratic framework. On one hand, there is a clear legal foundation that seeks to protect party autonomy and limit judicial overreach. On the other hand, there is a growing practice of judicial intervention that undermines that very principle. This contradiction not only destabilizes political parties but also creates uncertainty for voters and stakeholders who depend on clarity and consistency in the democratic process.
Democracy thrives on strong institutions, clear rules, and respect for boundaries. When courts apply the law inconsistently, when political actors rely on litigation rather than internal mechanisms, and when regulatory bodies hesitate to act independently, the entire system begins to falter. The danger is not just in any single ruling or case, but in the cumulative effect of these contradictions, which gradually weaken the foundations of democratic governance.
The Katsina decision serves as a reminder of what judicial restraint looks like in a constitutional democracy, while the prolonged litigation in the Bala and Mark dispute highlights the risks of overreach and inconsistency. For Nigeria to strengthen its democracy, there must be a return to principled application of the law, respect for party autonomy, and a clear separation between legal adjudication and political maneuvering. Without this, the judiciary, whether intentionally or not, risks becoming a central player in political power struggles, with consequences that could undermine the very democracy it is meant to protect.
✍️ ADC Media Organization
18/04/2026.
SB E-news.
Related posts:
177 SAUDI ARABIA CANCELS VISA OF 264 PASSENGERS ON AIR PEACE FLIGHT, DEPORTS 177 www.sbenews.com.ng
TINUBUNOMICS: NIGERIA’S ECONOMIC MOMENTUM IN 2025 WILL SET NEW RECORD – IMPI www.sbenews.com.ng www....
HOW THE DUKE, PRINCE NDUKA OBAIGBENA, CHANGED THE TUNE - ozekhome www.sbenews.com.ng www.efficiency....
About the Author
