An Abuja Chief Magistrate Court sitting at Wuse Zone 2 dismissed a criminal complaint filed against Alhaji Shehu Musa Gabam, the contested national chairman of the [Social Democratic Party (SDP)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(Nigeria)), concluding that the court lacked the authority to adjudicate alleged misappropriation of party funds.
**Key facts**
- The complaint was lodged on 15 January 2026 by party chieftain Dr. Sodiq Umar Abubakar after the SDP disciplinary committee reported suspected diversion of party money.
- The case, recorded as DCC/10/2026, named Gabam and party member Chukwuma Ogbonna Okechukwu as defendants, accusing them of breach of trust under Sections 311 and 312 of the [Penal Code Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Code_(Nigeria)).
- Magistrate Amauche Onyedum stated, "The court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the case," and ordered the matter struck out.
- The magistrate noted that while the Penal Code permits prosecution of breach of trust in a magistrate court, the complexities of internal party finances and constitutional matters required a higher forum.
- Citing the precedent *Tumbido v. INEC* (2023) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1907) 301, the court emphasized the autonomy of political parties in managing internal affairs, directing that the dispute be heard by a [High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_(Nigeria)).
**What triggered the complaint?**
The complainant alleged that Gabam authorised payments and transactions that diverted SDP funds without following proper procedures, presenting sworn statements and documentary evidence to support the claim.
**Why was jurisdiction an issue?**
The magistrate reasoned that resolving the allegations would entail a detailed examination of the party’s internal governance, financial records, and the findings of its disciplinary committee—matters beyond the scope of a magistrate court and more suited to a High Court.
**Who represented the parties?**
Sandra Agba appeared for the complainant, while Yahaya Mukaila Mavo acted for the defendants.
The ruling effectively halts the criminal proceedings until the matter is re‑filed in the appropriate higher court, underscoring the legal principle that internal party disputes are generally resolved by higher judicial authorities.