A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Monday dismissed a suit filed by All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain, Fubara Dagogo, challenging the conduct of the recent national congress of the APC, holding that the matter is an internal affair of the political party and was therefore non-justiciable.
Delivering judgment, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ruled that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case, particularly as it related to nomination processes, purchase of forms, and other pre-congress activities within the party.
The judge consequently struck out the suit and awarded a cost of N10 million each against Dagogo and his counsel, Ogochukwu Onyema, bringing the total fine to N20 million in favour of the four defendants.
Dagogo, an aspirant in the APC national congress, had approached the court seeking to invalidate the outcome of the congress for the office of National Vice Chairman, South-South, alleging that he was unlawfully excluded despite paying for his Expression of Interest and Nomination Forms.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/591/2026, the plaintiff joined the APC, its National Chairman, Nentawe Yilwatda, National Vice Chairman (South-South), Victor Giadom, and the party’s National Organizing Secretary, Sulaiman Muitamma, as defendants.
Among the reliefs sought, Dagogo prayed the court to declare that he was entitled to participate in the congress by virtue of the payment acknowledgment receipt allegedly issued to him by the party.
He also asked for N100 million as general damages over what he described as embarrassment and mental torture caused by the defendants.
However, counsel to the APC, Kayode Okunade, had urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the dispute was purely an internal party matter outside the jurisdiction of the court.
Okunade further contended that Dagogo lacked the legal standing to institute the action, adding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the court.
In her ruling, Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the defendants, maintaining that courts could not interfere in matters relating to party congresses, nomination procedures and related internal political processes.
