PUBLIC OPEN LETTER
TO THE PRESIDENT, COURT OF APPEAL,
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
My Lord President,
I write with deep respect for the Court of Appeal as a constitutional court of record and, more particularly, as the court that bears the greatest institutional responsibility for maintaining legal coherence and stability in Nigeria’s electoral and political jurisprudence. This letter is written out of civic concern, not partisan interest.
Nigeria has reached a point that may properly be described as engaging a doctrine of constitutional necessity. That necessity arises from the proliferation of unresolved appeals before the Court of Appeal concerning the legitimacy of political party executives and leadership structures across the federation.
While political parties are voluntary associations, the Constitution accords them a unique status. By virtue of section 221 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), only political parties may canvass for votes or sponsor candidates. Sections 222–228 further regulate their formation, internal structure, and accountability. The implication, long recognised in judicial reasoning, is that instability within political parties has direct constitutional consequences for democratic governance.
The Court of Appeal itself has consistently acknowledged this special status. In numerous decisions, it has affirmed that although courts may intervene where statute or party constitutions are breached, intra-party disputes must not be allowed to metastasise into perpetual litigation that paralyses the political system (see Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244, applied consistently at appellate level; APGA v. Anyanwu (2014) LPELR-22182(CA)).
The present situation where virtually all major political parties are entangled in leadership and legitimacy disputes at different appellate stages poses a systemic risk. It threatens to replace democratic competition with procedural gamesmanship, where political advantage is sought through interlocutory reliefs, conflicting orders, and serial appeals rather than through persuasion and lawful party processes.
The Court of Appeal has repeatedly deprecated this trend. It has warned against litigants engaging in forum shopping, multiplicity of suits, and abuse of judicial process in intra-party matters (Eze v. PDP (2018) LPELR-44907(CA); Ojukwu v. Yar’Adua (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1154) 50, as consistently followed). The Court has further emphasised that judicial intervention should not encourage political actors to abandon internal remedies mandated by their party constitutions and the Electoral Act (PDP v. Timipre Sylva (CA/YEN/…); APC v. Karfi (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1587) 328, affirmed on appeal).
Despite this settled appellate posture, the volume and persistence of these disputes have created a reality in which unresolved appeals now threaten to spill into the pre-election period. Experience shows that when leadership legitimacy remains unsettled close to an election cycle, the consequences are profound: candidate nominations are destabilised, electoral timelines are disrupted, and courts are forced into emergency adjudication under extreme political pressure.
It is against this background that I respectfully urge the leadership of the Court of Appeal to consider, within the bounds of judicial independence and due process, the prioritisation and expeditious determination of pending political party leadership appeals, including the use of consolidation, accelerated hearing, and firm case-management powers already recognised in appellate practice.
Such timely judicial closure would be entirely consistent with the Court of Appeal’s own jurisprudence. It would:
• reinforce the principle that courts are not substitutes for party governance;
• discourage vexatious and tactical litigation;
• restore certainty to political parties well ahead of the electoral season; and
• protect the judiciary from being drawn, inadvertently, into partisan strategy.
No constitutional democracy can function where the basic vehicles of political participation remain perpetually unsettled by litigation. Equally, no judiciary benefits when its processes are repeatedly weaponised to delay, rather than determine, lawful outcomes.
This letter is written in sober reflection and with full appreciation of the Court’s heavy docket and constitutional responsibilities. It is offered in the hope that decisive appellate clarity at this stage will help safeguard the integrity of the 2027 electoral process and preserve public confidence in Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
Please accept, My Lord, the assurances of my highest respect and consideration.
Yours faithfully,
Otunba Segun Showunmi
Dan Maliki Kwalam
The Alternative.
08/01/2026
