Jonathan, AGF Urge Court to Dismiss Suit Seeking to Bar Former President From 2027 Presidential Race
The question being argued in a Federal High Court in Abuja is deceptively simple in its phrasing but constitutionally explosive in its implications: can Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, former President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, legally contest the 2027 presidential election?
A courtroom in Abuja is now the arena in which that question will be answered. And the arguments being made on both sides cut to the heart of how Nigeria’s Constitution treats presidential tenure, retrospective legislation, and the rights of citizens to seek elective office.
The Suit That Has Landed Before Justice Lifu
Akahi News gathered that the suit was filed by an Abuja-based lawyer, Johnmary Jideobi, before Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja. It is framed as an originating summons — a civil procedure mechanism used to seek the court’s interpretation of specific legal questions without requiring full trial proceedings.
The central question Jideobi has asked the court to answer is whether, in view of the combined provisions of sections 1(1), 1(2), 1(3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution, the former president is eligible — under any circumstances — to contest for the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
That question is not new. It has been litigated before, in suits filed by other plaintiffs. But it has not yet received a definitive pronouncement from the highest courts of the land, and the approaching 2027 election cycle — with Jonathan’s name circulating in political conversations as a potential candidate — has given it renewed urgency.
Justice Lifu has fixed the 26th of May, 2026, for a composite judgment that will include a ruling on an application by Jideobi asking the judge to recuse himself from the matter — an application that has added a layer of procedural drama to what is already a constitutionally significant case.
The Constitutional Argument: Two Tenures or One and a Half?
At the centre of this litigation is an argument about how to count Goodluck Jonathan’s time in the presidency — and whether that counting, done correctly, disqualifies him from a future run.
Akahi News learnt that the plaintiff’s position, as deposed to by Emmanuel Agida in the supporting affidavit, rests on the following chronology: Jonathan was first sworn in as President on the 6th of May, 2010, following the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, whose constitutional remainder he completed. He was then sworn in again on the 29th of May, 2011, having won the presidential election in his own right and serving a full four-year term.
Jideobi’s argument is that these two oath-takings — the completion of Yar’Adua’s term and the full term that followed — together constitute Jonathan having exhausted the constitutional limit for the presidency. Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, bars persons who have taken the presidential oath of office more than twice from seeking the same office.
Jonathan took the oath twice. The plaintiff says that is the end of the matter.
The argument has a surface logic that is not without appeal. The Constitution says twice. Jonathan swore twice. Done.
But the response from Jonathan’s legal team, and from the weight of constitutional analysis on the matter, is considerably more nuanced.
Jonathan’s Defence: Retroactivity and the Limits of Constitutional Application
Jonathan’s counsel, the Senior Advocate of Nigeria Chris Uche, appeared before Justice Lifu and made arguments that go to the heart of constitutional interpretation.
His primary line of argument concerns the amendment to Section 137(3) of the Constitution — the provision that now bars persons who have taken the oath of office more than twice. Uche argued that this amendment, which was incorporated into the Constitution after Jonathan had already contested the 2015 election, cannot be applied retroactively against him.
This is a fundamental principle of constitutional and legal interpretation — the rule against retrospectivity. Laws, and constitutional amendments, are generally presumed to operate prospectively — that is, they govern future conduct and future events, not events that occurred before their enactment.
If the amendment to Section 137(3) was not in force when Jonathan completed Yar’Adua’s term and then won and served his own term, the argument goes, it cannot now be used to penalise him for actions taken before that provision existed in its current form.
Akahi News learnt that Uche also challenged the suit on procedural grounds, arguing that Jideobi lacks the legal standing — locus standi — to bring the action in the first place. In Nigerian legal procedure, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the matter before the court directly affects them in a concrete way. Merely being a citizen, or even a lawyer, is not sufficient to challenge another citizen’s constitutional eligibility for public office, unless a specific, personal interest can be shown.
“He has no locus standi to bring this action and no cause of action has crystallised,” Uche argued.
He added that the plaintiff must show he is a registered voter with a genuine interest in the outcome — not merely someone using litigation as a political instrument to exclude a potential candidate from the electoral field.
The AGF Weighs In
The presence of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, as a respondent in this matter is significant — and the federal government’s position, articulated by the Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law at the Ministry of Justice, Dr. Maimuna Lamin Shiru, aligns with Jonathan’s.
The Ministry of Justice has asked the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
That alignment — between Jonathan’s personal legal team and the federal government’s law officers — sends a signal about how the executive arm of government reads this constitutional question. The government of President Tinubu, through its law officers, is effectively saying: there is no legal basis for this suit, and it should be dismissed.
The political dimensions of that position are not lost on observers. Jonathan’s potential 2027 candidacy — whether under a reconstituted party, a coalition arrangement, or any other platform — would represent a direct challenge to Tinubu’s re-election bid. The government’s alignment with Jonathan in this preliminary legal matter is therefore a curiosity worth noting, even if its immediate explanation is purely legal rather than political.
The Recusal Application: Is the Judge Biased?
Adding a layer of procedural complexity to the case, Jideobi filed an application on Monday asking Justice Lifu to withdraw from the matter entirely — citing alleged bias.
The specific allegation relates to what Jideobi’s legal team describes as the court having shortened the 14-day period initially granted to respond to Jonathan’s counter-affidavit and preliminary objection. If the timeline was indeed curtailed without adequate justification, the plaintiff argues, it undermined his right to properly prepare his response — raising questions about procedural fairness.
It was alleged that the recusal application reflects a broader dissatisfaction with how the matter has been managed, and that Jideobi’s team believes the proceedings have not been balanced in the plaintiff’s favour.
Justice Lifu will rule on the recusal application as part of the composite judgment fixed for the 26th of May. If he grants the application, the entire matter will need to be reassigned to another judge — resetting the timeline and potentially opening the proceedings to a fresh approach. If he dismisses it, the case proceeds on its current trajectory.
Previous Suits: A Pattern of Failed Challenges
Akahi News learnt that Uche, in his arguments, cited previous judicial decisions in suits filed by other plaintiffs — specifically Andy Solomon and Cyracus Njoku — who had similarly attempted to challenge Jonathan’s eligibility for the presidency. Both suits, according to Uche, were dismissed.
That pattern of dismissal is relevant context. If courts have previously found insufficient legal basis for challenges to Jonathan’s potential candidacy, the burden on Jideobi to distinguish his suit — to show why it should be treated differently — is a significant one.
The plaintiff’s counsel, Ndubuisi Ukpai, pushed back against the preliminary objections, arguing that being a registered voter is not a condition for instituting this type of constitutional suit and urging the court to dismiss the objections filed by Jonathan and the Ministry of Justice. He maintained that the question of Jonathan’s constitutional eligibility is a legitimate one for judicial determination, regardless of the plaintiff’s personal stake.
While constitutional debates shape Nigeria’s political future, Akahi Tutors in Ile-Ife is shaping the next generation of Nigerian lawyers, politicians, and leaders. Gain admission into OAU, University of Lagos, University of Nigeria, University of Ibadan, University of Ilorin, University of Calabar, and other top universities. We prepare students for Post UTME, Pre-Degree, WAEC, NECO, GCE, JUPEB, and School of Nursing entrance examinations. Call 08038644328 or WhatsApp wa.me/2348038644328 today.
The Bigger Question: Jonathan’s 2027 Ambitions
The legal proceedings are, in one sense, a proxy for a larger political question that has been circulating in Nigeria’s political space with increasing intensity: is Goodluck Jonathan actually planning to contest the 2027 presidential election?
Jonathan has not made a public declaration of candidacy. But his name has been circulating in political conversations — across party lines and across geopolitical zones — in ways that suggest something more than idle speculation. There have been reports of political meetings, of potential platforms, of discussions about which structure he might contest under.
The PDP, the party under which he served as president, remains in a complicated internal state. Other options — including potential new platforms or coalition arrangements — have been floated.
Whether Jonathan himself is behind the circulation of his name, or whether it is the product of political actors who see value in his candidacy as part of their own calculations, is not entirely clear. What is clear is that the circulation has been persistent enough to generate litigation — and that the litigation itself is generating the kind of public attention that keeps a name in electoral conversation.
What Section 137(3) Actually Says and Why It Matters
For Nigerian readers seeking to understand the constitutional provision at the heart of this dispute, a brief explanation is warranted.
Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended by the Fourth Alteration Act, provides that a person who has taken the presidential oath of office more than twice is ineligible to seek the office again. The provision was introduced specifically to address scenarios — like Jonathan’s — where a person might assume the presidency through constitutional succession and then contest and win in their own right, potentially accumulating more than two full terms in the office.
The drafters of the amendment were clearly concerned about the possibility of extended tenure through the back door of succession. But the question of whether the amendment was intended to apply to individuals like Jonathan — who completed Yar’Adua’s unexpired term and then served one of his own — or only to future presidents who might attempt three successive terms, is precisely what the courts are being asked to resolve.
It is, at its core, a question about legislative intent, constitutional text, and the rule against retrospectivity. It is also, in the context of Nigerian electoral politics, a question with significant practical consequences for the shape of the 2027 presidential race.
N50 Million Costs Sought Against the Plaintiff
One aspect of the proceedings that has attracted attention is Jonathan’s legal team’s request for N50 million in costs to be awarded against Jideobi if the suit is dismissed.
Uche made this request alongside the application to dismiss — framing the suit as an abuse of the litigation process designed to use the courts as a political instrument rather than a genuine legal remedy.
Whether Justice Lifu grants such costs — even if he dismisses the suit — will be a further signal of how the court reads the plaintiff’s motivations. Punitive costs are awarded in Nigerian courts when judges determine that proceedings were brought frivolously or vexatiously. A cost award of N50 million would be a significant statement.
Akahi News will monitor the May 26th hearing and report on Justice Lifu’s composite judgment as soon as it is delivered.
A Reflection on Courts, Politics, and the Constitution
There is something instructive — and slightly disquieting — about the frequency with which Nigeria’s courts are asked to adjudicate questions that are, at their root, political.
In a mature democracy, the electorate is the primary arbiter of who contests elections and who wins them. The courts serve as a backstop — ensuring that the rules are followed and that constitutional provisions are respected. But when the courts become the first resort for political exclusion rather than the last, something has gone wrong in the relationship between law and politics.
This is not to say that Jideobi’s suit lacks a constitutional question worth answering. The question he poses is genuinely important. Nigeria deserves clarity on whether Jonathan — or anyone in a similar constitutional position — is eligible to seek the presidency again. That clarity, provided by a court of competent jurisdiction, would serve the country’s interests regardless of how it is ultimately answered.
But clarity of this kind should be sought in advance of electoral seasons, through deliberate constitutional litigation rather than as part of the political manoeuvring of an approaching election cycle.
When will Nigeria develop the constitutional culture in which these foundational questions are answered definitively, in proper time, without the shadow of electoral strategy hanging over every argument?
That is a question for Nigerian lawyers, judges, and the National Assembly — as much as it is for the parties currently before Justice Lifu in Abuja.
The 26th of May: A Date to Watch
When Justice Lifu delivers his composite judgment on the 26th of May, 2026, he will be ruling simultaneously on the recusal application and on the substantive matters before him — including the preliminary objections filed by Jonathan and the Ministry of Justice.
If the recusal application succeeds, the matter goes to a new judge. The timeline resets. And Jonathan’s eligibility question remains legally unresolved as the 2027 election approaches.
If the recusal application fails and the preliminary objections succeed, the suit is dismissed — and Jonathan’s path to a potential 2027 candidacy is cleared of this particular legal obstacle, though others may follow.
If the recusal application fails and the substantive case proceeds to full hearing, the constitutional question will receive a more detailed judicial examination — and Nigeria may, eventually, get the definitive answer it needs.
Any of these outcomes is possible. Justice Lifu holds the next chapter of this story in his hands.
Akahi News will be watching.
Build the legal, political, or professional career that shapes Nigeria’s future. Akahi Tutors in Ile-Ife prepares students for admission into OAU, UNILAG, UI, UNN, UNILORIN, UNICAL, and other top universities across Nigeria. We cover Post UTME, WAEC, NECO, GCE, JUPEB, Pre-Degree, and School of Nursing entrance examinations. Call 08038644328 or WhatsApp wa.me/2348038644328. Your career in service to Nigeria begins here.
🎓 Attend 2026 JAMB, Post-UTME, WAEC, and NECO GCE Tutorials
Get fully prepared with expert tutors, comprehensive study materials, and personalised academic guidance at Akahi Tutors.
📍 Located at 67, Oduduwa College Road, Off Sabo Junction, Ile-Ife.
📞 Call: 08038644328
for enrollment and accommodation reservation.
Reported by Joseph Iyaji for Akahi News — your trusted source for credible, community-aware news across Nigeria and beyond.
