APC Aspirant Sues Party, Alleges Exclusion After Spending N100m on Ambition

An aggrieved aspirant of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Ambassador Fubara Dagogo, has dragged the ruling party and some of its top officials before a Federal High Court in Abuja over his alleged exclusion from contesting for the position of National Vice Chairman (South-South).

Dagogo, in a suit filed before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, accused the party of unlawfully preventing him from participating in the race despite allegedly spending over N100 million in pursuit of his political ambition under the APC platform.

According to court documents, the aspirant claimed he duly paid for the party’s expression of interest and nomination forms but was denied access to the forms despite meeting all stipulated requirements.

“You cannot discard me after I spent over N100 million pursuing this ambition,” Dagogo reportedly argued in the suit, alleging that party officials deliberately frustrated his participation in the process.

The defendants in the suit include the APC, its National Chairman, Prof. Nentawe Yilwatda, National Vice Chairman (South-South), Victor Giadom, and the National Organising Secretary, Sulaiman Argungu.

The plaintiff is seeking an order nullifying any outcome of the South-South zonal congress conducted without his participation.

He is also demanding N100 million in damages for alleged embarrassment, emotional distress and mental torture caused by the actions of the party.

In an affidavit supporting the suit, Dagogo alleged that after paying the required fees on March 13, 2026, he visited the APC national secretariat to collect the nomination forms but was informed that the forms were no longer available.

He further alleged that some party officials deliberately prevented him from obtaining the forms because they feared he could defeat the incumbent officeholder in the contest.

However, the APC, through its legal representatives, urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the matter concerns the internal affairs of the party and is therefore not justiciable.

The case is expected to test the legal boundaries of party administration and internal dispute resolution within the ruling party ahead of its national convention.