2027: Court to deliver judgement in suit challenging Jonathan’s eligibility

The AGF's legal team backed the call for dismissal of the suit challenging Mr Jonathan's eligibility to run for the presidency in the 2027 elections.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday. fixed 26 May for judgement seeking to stop former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election.

Judge Peter Lifu fixed the date after parties adopted their processes and made final submissions on the dispute on Monday. He heard arguments on Mr Jonathan’s preliminary objection and the substantive suit.

During the proceedings, the judge also heard arguments on the plaintiff’s request for his withdrawal from the case over alleged bias.
alongside the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi.

The plaintifff argued that Mr Jonathan, having been sworn in twice as president, cannot contest again in 2027 based on the provisions of Sections 1(1), (2) and (3) and 137(3) of the Constitution.

He argued that INEC lacks constitutional power to accept Jonathan’s nomination for the 2027 presidential election. He also asked the court to compel the Attorney-General of the Federation to enforce any orders.

Arguments

Duirng Monday’s hearing, Mr Jonathan and the AGF opposed the plaintiff’s motion urging the judge to withdraw from the case on the grounds of alleged bias in the handling of the case.

Mr Jonathan’s lawyer, Mr Uche, described the application as frivolous and an abuse of court process.

“We want my lord to rely on the record of this honourable court,” he said. He said the claims amounted to “gross misrepresentation”.

He urged the court to dismiss the application and proceed with the substantive suit.

Also callin for the dismissal of the motion, AGF’s lawyer, Maimuna Lami-Shiru, said a judge may recuse himself only where impartiality is in doubt. However, she said the application brought by the plaintiff in the case lacked legal basis.

She called it “baseless, unmeritorious and an abuse of court process” and asked for cost in favour of the ministry.

After hearing arguments on the recusal motion, the judge proceeded to hear the preliminary objection and the substantive suit. He said he would deliver judgement if the recusal motion is not granted.

Mr Jonathan’s lawyer then moved the preliminary objection and asked the court to dismiss the suit with N50 million cost awarded against the plaintiff.

He relied on earlier decisions, including Andy Solomon v Jonathan and Cyracus Njoku v Jonathan, which he said went in Mr Jonathan’s favour.

He argued that Section 137(3) of the Constitution cannot apply retrospectively against Mr Jonathan, who last contested in 2015. He said the plaintiff used litigation for political exclusion, while no cause of action arose.

He added that Mr Jideobi lacked locus standi and asked the court to dismiss the suit. The AGF’s lawyer aligned with Mr Jonathan and asked the court to dismiss the case.

INEC did not appear in court, and the judge foreclosed its case.

Responding, Mr Ukpai, the plaintiff’s lawyer urged the court to dismiss the objections raised by Mr Jonathan and the Attorney-General.

After hearing all arguments, Judge Lifu fixed 26 May for judgement.