…the supreme court emphasized that “the internal affairs principle is not absolute”
ABUJA, NIGERIA- The iNews Times | The Supreme Court of Nigeria has upheld the dissenting opinion of Justice Okon Abang, declaring Joshua Ishaku as the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate for the 2026 Bwari Area Council chairmanship election.
In a 4–1 split decision on Monday, Justice Jamilu Yammama Tukur, delivering the lead judgment, overturned the majority ruling of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, which had earlier recognized Haruna Audi as the party’s candidate. The supreme court resolved all issues in Ishaku’s favor, ruling that the appellate court was incorrect in concluding that the suit was statute-barred.
The supreme court stated that Ishaku had been “denied the opportunity to be heard” and therefore deprived of a fair hearing. Addressing the argument that the suit was premature for not exhausting internal party remedies, the supreme court emphasized that “the internal affairs principle is not absolute” and that courts can intervene when matters exceed the confines of domestic party issues. It added that when a party violates its own guidelines, the shield of internal affairs no longer applies.
Affirming that Ishaku legitimately won the APC primary, the court noted that the obligation to exhaust internal party procedures falls on the aggrieved party, not the declared winner. “It is contradictory to insist that the appellant ought to have exhausted the party’s internal mechanisms,” the court held. It also agreed with Justice Abang that the dispute went beyond internal party matters, involving violations of constitutional rights, Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, and party guidelines.
The Supreme Court stressed that only a losing candidate is expected to pursue internal dispute resolution before approaching the court. It faulted the lower courts for failing to properly evaluate the material evidence, noting that each case must be assessed based on its specific facts.
Previously, the Court of Appeal had upheld the Federal High Court’s dismissal of Ishaku’s suit on the grounds of being statute-barred. Justice Abang, in dissent, rejected this reasoning, calling the respondents’ claims about when the cause of action arose an “imaginary position” unsupported by law or evidence. He argued that the correct point to consider was when the name of the second respondent was forwarded to INEC, noting that time cannot run against a litigant for an undisclosed or concealed act.
Justice Abang further described the argument that the cause of action arose at the panel’s alleged decision as a legal fiction intended to block the suit from being heard on its merits. He also criticized the trial court for failing to properly evaluate Exhibits J and INEC 4, which were crucial to the fair determination of the case.
