…Court to Rule on Case May 26
By Emmanuel Olugua
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Monday reserved judgment till May 26, 2026, in the suit seeking to determine whether former President Goodluck Jonathan is constitutionally eligible to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Justice Peter Lifu fixed the date after parties in the matter adopted their final written addresses and argued several preliminary objections, including a motion seeking the judge’s recusal from the case over alleged bias.
At the proceedings, both Jonathan and the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, urged the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety, insisting that it lacked merit and constituted an abuse of court process.
The Independent National Electoral Commission, Independent National Electoral Commission, which was joined as the second defendant, was however absent from the proceedings and had no legal representation in court.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025, was instituted by an Abuja-based lawyer, Johnmary Jideobi, who is asking the court to determine whether Jonathan can legally seek another term as president in 2027 after previously completing the unexpired tenure of late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and subsequently serving a full four-year term following the 2011 presidential election.
The plaintiff framed a sole constitutional question for determination by the court:
“Whether in view of the combined provisions of Sections 1(1), (2) and (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, the 1st Defendant is eligible under any circumstances whatsoever to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Based on the question, the plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction restraining Jonathan from presenting himself to any political party for nomination as a presidential candidate in the 2027 election and future presidential contests.
He also prayed the court to restrain INEC from accepting or publishing Jonathan’s name as a candidate for any presidential election, while seeking an order compelling the Attorney-General of the Federation to enforce the court’s decision if granted.
In an affidavit deposed to by Emmanuel Agida in support of the suit, the plaintiff argued that Jonathan had already exhausted the constitutional limit of two tenures.
The affidavit stated that if Jonathan contested and won the 2027 election, he would exceed the cumulative eight years constitutionally permitted for a Nigerian president.
The plaintiff further argued that Jonathan’s swearing-in in 2027 would amount to the third time he would be taking the presidential oath of office.
However, counsel to Jonathan, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), strongly opposed both the substantive suit and the motion seeking Justice Lifu’s withdrawal from the case.
Uche described the recusal application as frivolous, baseless and founded on gross misrepresentation.
“In opposition, we filed a counter affidavit of five paragraphs on May 12,” he told the court.
“We want my lord to rely on the record of this honourable court which has entirely dismissed the plaintiff’s entire claims as false and perjury.”
He urged the court to dismiss the application with substantial costs and proceed to determine the substantive case.
Similarly, the Attorney-General of the Federation, represented by Mrs Maimuna Lami-Shiru, Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law at the Federal Ministry of Justice, aligned with Jonathan in asking the court to throw out the plaintiff’s application.
Lami-Shiru acknowledged that judges possess the discretion to recuse themselves where impartiality may reasonably be questioned, but maintained that the present application lacked any legal basis.
She argued that the motion constituted an abuse of court process and urged the court to dismiss it as baseless, unmeritorious, and unsupported by law.
The AGF’s counsel also asked the court to award N2 million costs against the plaintiff in favour of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
Justice Lifu subsequently announced that all pending objections, including the application seeking his recusal, would be determined together with the final judgment on 26 May.