Justice Joyce Abdulmalik on Monday struck out a suit challenging the recent national congress of the All Progressives Congress and ordered the plaintiff and his lawyer to pay ₦20 million in costs.

The ruling, delivered at the Federal High Court Abuja, ended an attempt by APC member Fubara Dagogo to invalidate the party’s congress process for the position of National Vice Chairman, South-South. Dagogo argued that he was unlawfully excluded despite allegedly paying for nomination and expression of interest forms connected to the contest.

The court declined to examine the merits.

Justice Abdulmalik ruled that the dispute fell within the internal affairs of a political party and therefore lay outside the court’s jurisdiction. According to the judgment, issues surrounding nomination forms, aspirant screening, and congress participation were non-justiciable in the circumstances presented before the court.

The financial penalty attached to the ruling stood out immediately. The judge awarded ₦10 million against Dagogo personally and another ₦10 million against his lawyer, Ogochukwu Onyema, payable to the four defendants named in the suit.

Nigerian courts occasionally impose punitive costs in political cases viewed as procedurally defective or abusive. But ₦20 million combined sanctions in an intra-party dispute sends a clear procedural warning to litigants attempting to move political grievances into federal courts without clearing jurisdictional hurdles first.

Dagogo’s suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/591/2026, named the APC, its National Chairman Nentawe Yilwatda, National Vice Chairman South-South Victor Giadom, and National Organising Secretary Sulaiman Muitamma as defendants.

Dagogo argued that APC officials excluded him from the congress despite his alleged compliance with payment requirements. Court filings referenced APC Payment Acknowledgement Receipt No. 26827 dated March 13, which the plaintiff claimed entitled him to obtain nomination and expression of interest forms for the South-South vice chairmanship position.

Related News

He sought multiple remedies. The suit asked the court to nullify any congress outcome reached without his participation. Dagogo also requested ₦100 million in general damages for what he described as embarrassment, discomfort, and mental torture allegedly caused by party officials.

The APC challenged the suit at the threshold stage.

Through preliminary objections filed by lawyer Kayode Okunade, the party argued that the dispute concerned domestic political matters shielded from judicial interference. The defense maintained that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction because the matter involved pre-primary political activity and discretionary party administration.

Justice Abdulmalik agreed substantially with the defense position. According to the judgment summary presented in court, the judge held that nomination processes and related congress disputes belonged primarily within party structures unless statutory or constitutional violations created limited exceptions recognized under electoral law.

The ruling aligns with a long line of Nigerian appellate decisions restricting judicial intervention in party management disputes. Nigerian courts have repeatedly distinguished between disputes involving statutory electoral breaches and disputes considered purely internal political arrangements.

The distinction has shaped election litigation for years.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently held that political parties retain broad discretion over candidate selection, screening procedures, and internal congress administration, except where actions violate provisions of the Electoral Act or constitutional requirements capable of judicial review.

Our analysis of recent election-cycle litigation shows courts increasingly disposing of intra-party disputes on procedural grounds before substantive hearings begin. In several cases since 2022, judges have emphasized exhaustion of internal dispute mechanisms before litigants can seek judicial intervention.

Internal party conflicts in Nigeria rarely end at congress venues. They frequently migrate into courtrooms because congress outcomes influence delegate structures, access to campaign networks, and control over regional party machinery ahead of general elections. The South-South zone carries particular strategic importance because of its voting strength, oil-producing states, and long-running factional disputes inside major parties.

Dagogo’s complaint reflected those broader tensions.

The APC defense team also argued that Dagogo lacked locus standi, meaning legal standing to sue, because he was allegedly not recognized formally as a valid aspirant under party guidelines. The party further contended that the suit was premature since internal dispute resolution mechanisms had not been exhausted before litigation commenced.

Courts take exhaustion arguments seriously.

Election lawyers interviewed in prior APC and PDP disputes have repeatedly noted that judges increasingly expect litigants to demonstrate documented attempts to use party appeal panels, reconciliation committees, or arbitration structures before approaching federal courts.

The judgment also exposes another recurring feature of Nigerian political litigation: the growing use of punitive cost awards. Legal analysts say courts deploy substantial financial penalties partly to discourage speculative political lawsuits filed primarily to delay congress recognition or create leverage during negotiations.

For many political aspirants outside elite funding circles, ₦20 million in adverse costs represents a potentially career-altering financial consequence. The judgment therefore functions not only as a procedural ruling but also as a deterrent signal to future intra-party litigants considering aggressive pre-election court actions without strong jurisdictional footing.

No immediate notice of appeal had been publicly disclosed Monday evening.

That leaves open whether Dagogo’s legal team intends to challenge the ruling before the Court of Appeal Abuja Division. Appeals involving jurisdictional findings often move quickly because appellate courts can determine whether lower courts should have entertained the dispute at all.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik dismissed the APC congress suit after ruling that the dispute involved internal party affairs outside federal court jurisdiction.

The court imposed ₦20 million in combined costs against Fubara Dagogo and his lawyer, which is unusually high for an intra-party political case.

The APC successfully argued that the plaintiff lacked standing and failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms.

The ruling reinforces a broader judicial trend limiting court interference in party congresses and nomination disputes before elections.

Why did the court refuse to hear the case fully?

Because the judge ruled the matter was an internal APC dispute. Nigerian courts usually avoid interfering in party administration unless there is a clear statutory or constitutional violation.

What does “lack of jurisdiction” actually mean here?

It means the court decided it had no legal authority to determine the dispute, regardless of whether the plaintiff’s allegations were true or false.

Can Dagogo still challenge the decision?

Yes. He can appeal to the Court of Appeal. But appellate courts often uphold jurisdiction rulings unless the lower court clearly misapplied electoral law or precedent.

The unresolved question now is whether Fubara Dagogo will file a notice of appeal within the statutory deadline before the Court of Appeal Abuja Division, and whether the disputed ₦20 million cost order will be stayed pending further proceedings or enforced immediately against the plaintiff and his counsel.