The Federal High Court sitting in Jalingo, Taraba State, has reserved ruling in a suit filed by an All Progressives Congress (APC) chairmanship aspirant, Abdulhadi Haruna Lau, challenging his exclusion from the party’s state chairmanship primary.

Justice Mashkur Salisu adjourned the matter on Wednesday after hearing extensive arguments from lawyers representing the parties in the suit.

At the centre of the legal dispute is Lau’s claim that he was qualified to contest the APC state chairmanship position but was prevented from participating in the primary despite completing the required processes and making payments demanded by the party.

Lau, as observed by The Guardian, is asking the court to invalidate the chairmanship primary, contending that his exclusion was unlawful and violated his rights as an aspirant.

His counsel, Musa Attah, SAN, told the court that Lau had the right to seek the chairmanship position and that the alleged denial of access to the contest could not be justified by the circumstances presented before the court.

Attah also argued that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the case, rejecting the argument that the dispute was strictly an internal affair of the APC and therefore beyond judicial intervention.

The plaintiff’s counsel further challenged the claim that Lau had failed to pay his party dues for the 2023–2025 period.

According to Attah, Lau made the required payments and was issued a receipt, but was subsequently denied the form necessary to participate in the chairmanship contest.

“He was denied the form to contest after paying the money. A receipt of payment was issued to the plaintiff, but the receipt for the purchase of the intention form was not issued to him,” Attah argued.

The defence, however, urged the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s case. Counsel to the APC, Festus Kayode, SAN, asked the court to strike out the suit, arguing that the documents placed before the court had been properly executed and that the dispute essentially concerned the internal administration of the political party.

Kayode maintained that the court lacked jurisdiction to interfere in the party’s decision on who was qualified to contest its internal elective position.

According to him, where a political party determines that an aspirant is not qualified to contest, such a decision falls within the party’s internal processes.

Counsel to the second defendant, John Okezie, also opposed Lau’s claims, arguing that the plaintiff had only paid for the aspiration form but failed to fulfil another financial requirement prescribed by the party.

Okezie specifically alleged that Lau did not pay the required penalty fee stipulated by the APC constitution.

He told the court that the plaintiff had failed to produce evidence establishing payment of the penalty fee or documentation from the APC National Working Committee confirming his eligibility to participate in the primary.

The conflicting positions of the parties therefore place two central questions before the court: whether Lau fulfilled all the requirements to contest the APC chairmanship position and whether the court has the jurisdiction to intervene in the party’s decision to exclude him from the primary.

Lau’s legal team has maintained that he completed the necessary procedures, obtained the relevant forms and fulfilled the requirements to participate in the primary, but was denied the opportunity to contest without what it considers a valid justification.

The plaintiff contends that his exclusion was not merely an internal party matter but one capable of attracting judicial scrutiny because, according to his claim, it affected his constitutional rights and participation in the political process.

He has consequently urged the court to intervene and invalidate the disputed primary, arguing that allowing qualified aspirants to be excluded from party elections without due process could have implications for internal democracy and the broader electoral process.

The APC and the second defendant have, however, maintained their opposing positions, asking the court to reject the suit on grounds including jurisdiction and alleged failure by the plaintiff to meet the party’s requirements.

With arguments from all sides now concluded, Justice Mashkur Salisu has reserved ruling in the matter. The date for the ruling is expected to be communicated to the parties by the court.