The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday struck out a suit challenging the conduct of the national congress of the All Progressives Congress, holding that the matter bordered on the internal affairs of the party and was therefore not justiciable.
Trial judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, also imposed a total cost of N20m against the plaintiff, Fubara Dagogo, and his lawyer, Ogochukwu Onyema.
Delivering judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that the dispute arose from the APC’s internal congress and nomination processes, which the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain under Section 83(5) of the Electoral Act 2026.
“It is my considered view that the subject matter of this suit pertains definitely to the internal affairs of the activities of APC,” the judge ruled.
She added that having found that the court lacked jurisdiction, all other issues raised in the suit had become “academic issues which will not serve any practical purpose.”
The judge consequently struck out the suit in its entirety.
Dagogo, an aspirant in the APC national congress, had approached the court to challenge what he described as his exclusion from the party’s national convention election despite allegedly purchasing and completing the required nomination forms.
He sued the APC alongside Nentawe Yilwatda, Victor Giadom, the party’s National Vice Chairman (South-South), and Sulaiman Muitamma, the APC National Organising Secretary.
The suit followed the APC zonal congresses conducted on March 21 across the six geopolitical zones and the party’s national convention held between March 25 and March 28.
Dagogo, through his counsel, Onyema, claimed he was duly cleared after paying for his expression of interest and nomination forms but was later excluded from the process.
He sought, among others, a nullification of the APC national congress outcome for the office of National Vice Chairman (South-South) conducted without his participation, as well as N100m in damages.
The APC and other defendants challenged the suit through a preliminary objection, urging the court to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
Comments
Post a Comment