The Case of the Unrefunded Nomination Fee: Sunny Moniedafe vs. All Progressives Congress
The political landscape in Nigeria is often characterized by intricate power dynamics, strategic maneuvering, and, occasionally, legal battles. One such case, unfolding in the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja, involves Sunny Moniedafe, an aspirant for the position of Deputy National Chairman (North) of the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the party itself. The crux of the matter revolves around a N10 million nomination fee paid by Moniedafe, which he alleges the party promised to refund but failed to do so. This seemingly straightforward financial dispute reveals a deeper narrative of political promises, party dynamics, and the legal recourse available to individuals navigating the complex world of Nigerian politics.
Moniedafe’s pursuit of the refund began following the APC’s national convention held on March 26, 2022. He contends that during the convention, the party leadership, under then-President Muhammadu Buhari, urged aspirants for the Deputy National Chairman position to step down. The rationale behind this request was an alleged agreement within the party that the position would be allocated to a candidate from Borno State, located in the North-East geopolitical zone. As an incentive for aspirants to withdraw, Buhari reportedly directed the party to refund the nomination fees paid. Moniedafe complied with the request, expecting the promised reimbursement.
However, despite numerous attempts to recover his N10 million, Moniedafe’s efforts proved futile. The APC, according to his account, reneged on its promise, leading him to file a lawsuit against the party. The case, filed at the FCT High Court and assigned to Justice Yusuf Halilu, seeks a court order compelling the APC to refund the contested amount. The legal action underscores the breakdown in communication and trust between Moniedafe and the APC leadership, highlighting the challenges individuals can face when relying on political promises.
Moniedafe’s efforts to resolve the matter amicably before resorting to legal action are evident in his communication with various high-ranking party officials. His correspondence, which included reminder letters about the refund, reached a wide array of influential figures within the APC. Among the recipients were former President Buhari, former Chief of Staff to the President Professor Ibrahim Gambari, current President Bola Tinubu, former Senate President Ahmad Lawan, Vice President Kashim Shettima, former APC National Chairman Senator Abdullahi Adamu, Dr. Abdullahi Ganduje, and Femi Gbajabiamila, who served as Speaker of the House of Representatives at the time. Despite these attempts, the refund remained elusive, forcing Moniedafe to pursue his claim through the legal system.
The stalled hearing of the case due to the absence of the presiding judge further underscores the delays and complexities often associated with legal proceedings. While the court date was scheduled, Justice Halilu’s absence necessitated a postponement, leaving Moniedafe in continued limbo. This delay serves as a reminder of the protracted nature of legal battles, especially within the context of political disputes. The ongoing case raises questions about the efficiency of the judicial process and the challenges individuals face in seeking timely resolution of their grievances.
The legal arguments presented by Moniedafe center on the promise made by the APC leadership, under the direction of then-President Buhari, to refund the nomination fees. He contends that this promise constitutes a binding agreement, and the party’s failure to honor it represents a breach of contract. Furthermore, Moniedafe emphasizes the repeated demands he made for the refund, demonstrating his persistent efforts to resolve the issue outside of court. His legal team will likely argue that the party’s actions, or lack thereof, constitute a violation of his rights and entitle him to the requested refund.
The case of Sunny Moniedafe versus the APC sheds light on the intricate interplay between politics, finance, and the law in Nigeria. It raises important questions about the enforceability of political promises, the accountability of political parties, and the role of the judiciary in resolving disputes within the political sphere. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for how political parties manage internal financial matters and interact with their members. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of clear communication, transparency, and adherence to agreements within the political arena. As the case progresses, it will be crucial to observe the legal arguments presented by both sides and the court’s interpretation of the facts and applicable laws. The final judgment will undoubtedly set a precedent for similar cases in the future, shaping the relationship between political parties and their members in Nigeria’s vibrant political landscape.
