By Emmanuel Oloniruha
Abuja, Jan. 9, 2026 – The New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) has taken a firm and constitutionally grounded stance, declaring that its National Working Committee’s (NWC) decision to dissolve the party’s executive committees in Kano State at all levels is final and irreversible by any court order. This position, articulated by the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Ladipo Johnson, in Abuja on Thursday, sets the stage for a significant legal and political confrontation centered on the autonomy of political parties.
The party’s forceful reaction was prompted by media reports indicating that a Kano State High Court, presided over by Justice Nasiru Saminu, had issued an interim injunction on Tuesday purportedly reversing the NNPP’s dissolution of its state, local government, and ward executives.
In a statement that blends legal argument with political defiance, Johnson dismissed these reports as “an ordinary street rumour,” asserting that the party’s leadership had not been formally served with any court process. He emphasized that the NWC’s action was a completed internal administrative procedure.
“We still regard the whole orchestration as a mere rumour,” Johnson stated. “But if this is confirmed, we will take firm legal measures and ensure that the purported illegal injunction does not stand. Obviously, it can never stand because it is an illegality, a clear abuse of court process as the court lacks the jurisdiction to reverse a decision by the party, being an internal affair of the party.”
The Core Legal Argument: The Non-Justiciability of Internal Party Affairs
The NNPP’s confidence stems from a well-established principle in Nigerian jurisprudence. Johnson explicitly invoked rulings by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, which has consistently held in a “plethora of cases” that the internal affairs of political parties are non-justiciable. This legal doctrine shields parties from judicial interference in matters like membership, discipline, and internal leadership appointments, provided their actions align with their own registered constitutions and do not violate any extant law.
This principle is crucial for party autonomy. It allows political parties to self-regulate, manage dissent, and enforce discipline without being bogged down in constant litigation. The NNPP argues that the dissolution of its Kano chapters falls squarely within this protected realm of internal administration.
Accusations of “Legal Rascality” and a Threat of Sanctions
The party’s language escalated significantly, framing the reported court order as a profound overreach. Johnson labeled the injunction as “an exercise in legal rascality” and “a misnomer,” arguing it was improper for a judge to grant an interim order against a completed action by the party’s highest administrative body.
More strikingly, the NNPP issued a direct threat to pursue sanctions against the judicial officers involved. “In established instances of this nature,” Johnson added, “the NNPP would have no option than to take all necessary measures to ensure that the judicial officers involved were duly sanctioned by the National Judicial Council (NJC).” This move signals an intention to fight the battle not just on the merits of the specific case, but on the broader conduct of the judiciary, potentially seeking disciplinary action for alleged abuse of judicial process.
Context and Implications: A High-Stakes Power Struggle in Kano
This dispute is far from a mere procedural squabble. Kano State is a pivotal political battleground in Nigeria. The dissolution of an entire state’s party structure typically indicates a severe internal crisis—possibly a factional war, allegations of anti-party activity, or a strategic move by the national leadership to consolidate control ahead of elections.
By refusing to acknowledge the court order and invoking the internal affairs doctrine, the NNPP’s national leadership is asserting its supreme authority over its state chapter. The standoff presents a critical test:
- For the NNPP: Can it maintain party discipline and central control without legal repercussions?
- For the Judiciary: Where is the line between a court’s duty to uphold justice and the legal principle of non-interference in party affairs?
- For the Kano Executives: Their political futures hang in the balance, dependent on the outcome of this clash between party sovereignty and judicial intervention.
Johnson concluded with unambiguous finality: “The dissolution of Kano State executives of the party at all levels therefore stands.” This statement is not just a reaffirmation of a decision; it is a public challenge to the authority of the court that purportedly sought to overturn it, setting the scene for a consequential legal and political showdown.
Edited by Sadiya Hamza
Source: NAN News
