SUPREMACY OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS 

Political parties should comply with their own rules and regulations, argues CHUKS OKOCHA 

Nigeria is a country of laws. And Samuel Adams, one of the founding fathers of America noted that the rule of laws means “There shall be one rule of justice for rich and poor, for the favourite in court, and the countryman at the plough.” The Nigerian Supreme Court recently ruled on some political issues which raised some furore. But as a country of laws every court judgment is expected to be obeyed, not selectively, but whole and entire. irrespective of status as stated in the 1999 Constitution (as amended.)

It is an understatement that two recent Supreme Court rulings on the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Labour Party (LP) over their national leadership have been subjected to various interpretations in media spaces and elsewhere, of what it means for a matter to be under the “Internal affairs of the Party”.

 It is believed by some observers that the misinterpretations of the content and context of the judgments seem to be guided by selfish political interests given that some interpreters are lawyers and leaders of repute who should know better. 

Some of these parties’ members are making a sing and dance of the verdict as if the Supreme Court has just made a new rule or law for political parties to govern themselves. 

Records show that on the contrary, the supreme court as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and upholder of the rule of law has been consistent with this position; which is aimed at strengthening parties’ Constitution and other extant laws like their electoral guidelines, to ensure party supremacy and stability in the running of their internal affairs. 

In other words, to strengthen party institution and deepen democracy, handling matters based on the “internal party affairs”of a party is to allow an enabling environment for the rights of political party and its members to thrive based on the provisions of rules and regulations which are binding on both sides. Furthermore, the Court allows this position to ensure that internal or intra-party democracy is practiced, preserved and maintained. 

For the avoidance of doubt, the supreme court verdict on a matter being “under the Internal Affairs of the Party” does not mean leaders of political parties making impromptu decisions or carrying out actions on their whims or imaginations but simply to comply with the rules and regulations that govern them to guide expected outcome of such matter. 

To further emphasize, the supreme court position on an issue under the internal affairs of a party envisages that the Party is at peace and has a lasting or enduring constitutional provisions and electoral guidelines in the nominations and emergence of its national leaders. However, the Courts sounded a note of warning that when a party contravenes its own rules and in disarray, the court as an arbiter must step in. 

It is therefore trite in law that internal or intra-party matters are entirely within the party’s internal affairs, “exclusively and completely outside the province or competence of courts or Tribunals.” (See JANG v. INEC (2004) 12 NWLR Pt. 886) 46). For emphasis, it is to allow or ensure that handling of “internal party affairs” prevails. There is a powerful argument that expounded this position in the case of AGI v. PDP & ORS (2016) LPELR – SC. 256/2016, where the supreme court held that: “… a party is supreme over its own affairs …. A party is like a club. A voluntary association. It has its own rules, regulations, guidelines and constitution. Members join the party on their own free will. By joining, they have freely given their consent to be bound by the rules, regulations, guidelines and Constitution of the Party.

 These 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 would do well to understand and appreciate the 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….”  (See OLADIMEJI SAMSON OLALEKUN v. PDP & ORS (2021) TELR – 108767 (CA) and DAHIRU & ANOR v. APC & ORS (2016) TELR – 3359 (SC).

In view of the submissions above, it is very evident that the recent supreme court judgments on the PDP and LP are not ‘ambiguous’ or confusing; and under the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended), the apex court has both original and appellate jurisdiction, with exclusive authority to hear appeals from lower courts and settle disputes brought before it and decisions rendered by it are binding on all parties.

 INEC is also bound as the umpire by these judgments because one of the constitutional requirements of a registered political party is to register a party’s constitution and rules with the electoral commission. (See Section 223 of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 (as amended). 

Finally, let these Parties’ leaders trade with caution and comply with its own rules and regulations to avoid punishment against contempt of court which may be by imposing fines or imprisonment or both.

Okocha is a staff of THISDAY Newspaper