New Act Introduces a N10 million mandatory fine against Lawyer or Litigant who brings “Frivolous” suits

May 25, 2026
6 views

The introduction of Section 83 in the Electoral Act 2026 has sent shockwaves through Nigeria’s legal and political landscape. While the intent was to prevent the “judicialization of politics”, where courts essentially decide party winners. the execution has created a high-stakes environment for anyone seeking to challenge party leadership or internal processes.

​The new law doesn’t just suggest a fine; it mandates a heavy financial penalty for what it deems “frivolous” intervention in internal party matters.

The primary fear for aggrieved aspirants is the ambiguity of what constitutes “internal affairs.” Courts have viewed the selection of candidates and party leadership as a “family affair” (non-justiciable).

However, Section 29(5) of the Act still allows aspirants who participated in a primary to challenge false information provided by a candidate.

If a judge decides that your grievance, even if it involves a sham, primary falls under the “internal affairs” umbrella rather than a statutory breach, that ₦10 million fine becomes mandatory.

​For lawyers, the risk is twofold. Beyond the ₦10 million fine, filing a suit that is later deemed a “negation” of Section 83 can lead to Professional Misconduct Charges and Reputational Damage.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the National Judicial Council (NJC) have been increasingly strict about “forum shopping” and filing known frivolous suits. Being labeled as a counsel who ignored statutory bars to litigation can effectively end a career in election petition law.

By making the cost of losing nearly identical to the cost of a high-end political campaign, the Act effectively creates a “pay-to-play” barrier for justice. It protects party executives from “black market injunctions” (orders obtained late at night from distant courts), but it also risks shielding “party godfathers” from legitimate accountability.

Many legal experts argue this provision may eventually face a Constitutional challenge, as it arguably limits the right of access to court guaranteed under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution.

Don't Miss