On Wednesday, the [Federal High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_High_Court_(Nigeria)) sitting in Jalingo, Taraba State, adjourned a case brought by APC chairmanship aspirant Abdulhadi Haruna Lau, and the court will announce the decision at a later date.
The plaintiff seeks to have the All Progressives Congress (APC) state chairmanship primary declared void, arguing that he was unlawfully excluded despite having paid the required nomination fees and meeting the party’s eligibility criteria. He filed the suit after being denied the intention form needed to contest the primary.
**What is the plaintiff asking for?**
Lau’s legal team contends that the primary should be invalidated because his exclusion breached his constitutional rights and the principles of internal party democracy. They assert that he completed all procedural steps, including payment of the nomination fee, and was issued a receipt, yet the party refused to issue the necessary form.
**What arguments did the plaintiff’s counsel present?**
Counsel for Lau, Musa Attah, SAN, maintained that the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the plaintiff’s case does not exceed judicial powers. He quoted his client, saying, “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 also refuted the defence’s claim that Lau had failed to settle party dues for 2023‑2025, insisting that the dues were paid and documented.
**What was the defence’s position?**
Representing the APC, Festus Kayode, SAN, urged the court to strike out the suit, arguing that the documents before it were properly executed and that the dispute falls within the party’s internal affairs, which are beyond judicial intervention. He asserted that the party’s decision to deem an aspirant ineligible is a matter of internal process. A second defence counsel, John Okezie, added that Lau had only paid for the aspiration form and had not settled the penalty fee required by the party’s constitution, and that no evidence of such payment had been produced.
**What is the next step?**
The court, presided over by Justice Mashkur Salisu, has reserved its judgment and will communicate the date of the ruling to the parties after further consideration of the arguments presented.