A suit seeking to stop former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election suffered a setback on Monday at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
- +2027 Poll: Suit seeking to bar Jonathan from presidential race suffers setback
- +“2027 Poll: Jonathan opposes suit seeking to bar him from presidential race”
The judge, Peter Lifu, was forced to postpone proceedings due to the absence of the lawyers to most of the parties to the suit.
The judge, Peter Lifu, was forced to postpone proceedings due to the absence of the lawyers to most of the parties to the suit.
Mr Lifu took the decision to fix a new hearing date after rejecting Mr Jonathan’s legal team’s vehement call to throw out the suit on grounds of lack of diligent prosecution.
The plaintiff, Johnmary Jideobi, who is a lawyer, was absent from Monday’s proceedings and had no legal representation.
Also, two defendants, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), had no lawyer to represent them.
Only, Mr Jonathan was represented by his lawyer, Chris Uche, a Senior Advocate of the NSAN, was in court.
Judge Lifu noted the absence of other parties and allowed proceedings to continue briefly. However, Mr Uche informed the court that the matter was fixed for hearing.
Consequently, he applied for the suit to be struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.
He told the court that the plaintiff’s lawyer, Ndubuisi Ukpai, who attended the previous sitting, failed to appear or give any reason for his absence.
He also said the plaintiff, Mr Jideobi, who is a lawyer, was not in court and had not offered any explanation. “My Lord, what it means is that they have lost interest in pursuing the suit, particularly after we have filed and served our notice of preliminary objection and other processes,” Mr Uche said. “In a matter where processes have been exchanged, we may ask that the matter be dismissed.”
Mr Uche submitted that the rules of court empowered the judge to strike out the suit for want of diligent prosecution.
He therefore urged the court to strike out or dismiss the case with substantial costs.
At that point, Judge Lifu directed the registrar to confirm from the case file whether hearing notices had been served on INEC and the AGF.
After it was confirmed that neither INEC nor the AGF had been served, the judge held that fair hearing required that both defendants be given another opportunity.
However, Mr Uche argued that INEC and the AGF were passive parties in the matter. He added that striking out the case would not prejudice them. In addition, he sought N5 million costs against the plaintiff.
“For every default, there must be a consequence,” he said. “So we urge your Lordship to exercise the right you have under the rules of the court in our favour.”
Nevertheless, Judge Lifu maintained that the court must ensure all parties were properly heard.
“Let us give them time. Let this order be served on INEC because INEC is fundamental in this case,” he said. “Let us listen to INEC in this matter.”
The judge adjourned the case until 15 May for definite hearing.
“In the circumstances of this case, I am minded to bend backward to accommodate the plaintiff and the second and third defendants who have consistently been absent,” he added.
Meanwhile, he ordered that hearing notices be issued and served on the plaintiff, INEC and the AGF for the last time.
PREMIUM TIMES reported the suit filed on 6 October 2025, Mr Jideobi joined Mr Jonathan as first defendant. He also joined INEC and the Attorney-General of the Federation as co-defendants.
“2027 Poll: Jonathan opposes suit seeking to bar him from presidential race”
The suit raised a central question on whether Mr Jonathan, having been sworn in twice as president, can contest again in 2027 under Sections 1(1), (2) and (3) and 137(3) of the Constitution.
Relying on those provisions, the plaintiff argued that INEC lacks constitutional power to accept Mr Jonathan’s nomination for the 2027 presidential election.
He further asked the court to compel the Attorney-General of the Federation to ensure compliance with any orders made.
In an affidavit sworn by Emmanuel Agida, the plaintiff described himself as an advocate of constitutionalism and the rule of law.
It stated that Mr Jonathan was first inaugruated as Nigeria’s president on 6 May 2010 after the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua on 5 May 2010. It added that he later won the 2011 election and completed a full term in office.
The plaintiff said he later saw media reports suggesting Mr Jonathan may contest the 2027 election. He argued that Mr Jonathan had exhausted the constitutional limit of two terms and warned that his participation could raise constitutional questions on tenure limits.
On locus standi, Mr Jideobi maintained that, as a lawyer, he has a duty to prevent constitutional breaches. He therefore said the suit was filed in the public interest.
In response, Mr Jonathan, through his lawyer, challenged the competence of the suit.
He argued that Mr Jideobi lacked legal standing to file the case. He further described the suit as speculative and premature.
According to him, no nomination process or election had begun. He also argued that the court lacks jurisdiction over hypothetical constitutional issues.
“The suit constitutes a gross abuse of court process, aimed at obtaining a pre-emptive political judgment,” he said, describing the joiner of INEC and the AGF as a jurisdictional device.
Mr Jonathan said the issues raised had already been settled in a judgement of the Federal High Court in Yenagoa.
He therefore urged Judge Lifu to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction and abuse of the court process.
