Join our Telegram group and receive breaking and trending news updates directly on your phone.
Join for News Updates ✕
By Correspondent in Abuja.
Proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday suffered a setback in a suit filed by APC chieftain, Fubara Dagogo, challenging his alleged exclusion from the party’s national congress.
Dagogo, an aspirant in the recently concluded congress of the All Progressives Congress (APC), is seeking judicial intervention over what he described as an unlawful denial of participation in the contest for the position of National Vice Chairman, South-South.
The case, listed for hearing before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, could not proceed as scheduled due to the absence of a key court document, a preliminary objection filed by the APC’s newly appointed counsel, George Ibrahim.
The development followed the party’s decision to disengage its former lawyer, Kayode Okunade, who had earlier challenged the competence of the suit.
Compounding the delay, other defendants in the matter, including Nentawe Yilwatda, Victor Giadom, and Sulaiman Muitamma, were not represented in court.
In response, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the case to May 8 and directed that fresh hearing notices be issued and served on the absent defendants.
Dagogo, through his counsel, Ogochukwu Onyema, is urging the court to nullify the outcome of the APC’s South-South congress for National Vice Chairman, arguing that the exercise is invalid without his participation.
He maintains that having paid for and been cleared to obtain the party’s Expression of Interest and Nomination Forms, his exclusion violated party rules and his rights as an aspirant.
The plaintiff is also seeking a declaration affirming his entitlement to contest, as well as N100 million in damages against Giadom and Muitamma for alleged embarrassment and emotional distress.
However, the APC, in an earlier objection, is contesting the court’s jurisdiction over the matter.
Okunade had argued that disputes arising from party congresses and nomination processes fall strictly within the internal affairs of political parties and are therefore not justiciable.
He further contended that Dagogo lacks the legal standing to institute the suit, describing the action as premature and an abuse of court process, particularly as the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms were not fully explored.
The case now shifts to May 8, where the court is expected to first resolve the jurisdictional challenge before delving into the substantive claims, a decision that could have wider implications for internal party democracy and the limits of judicial intervention in political disputes.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.
