2027: AGF Joins Jonathan in Asking Court to Dismiss Suit against Eligibility

Alex Enumah in Abuja

The Attorney‑General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, together with former President Goodluck Jonathan, asked a Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday to dismiss a suit that seeks to bar Jonathan from running for president in 2027.

Both the AGF and Jonathan are respondents in the case. The suit was filed by Abuja‑based lawyer Mr. Johnmary Jideobi. They requested Justice Peter Lifu to dismiss the suit “with substantial cost,” arguing that it is an abuse of court process and a waste of judicial time.

Each party filed its own brief of argument. In the originating summons, Jideobi asked the court to determine whether, under sections 1(1), (2) and (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution, the first defendant is eligible to contest the presidency under any circumstances.

Jideobi claimed that Jonathan had reached the constitutional limit for presidential terms, having served after the death of former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and then another full term following the 2011 election.

In an affidavit supporting the suit, Emmanuel Agida, who testified on behalf of Jideobi, stated that Jonathan was sworn in as president on 6 May 2010 after Yar’Adua’s death and again on 29 May 2011 after winning the election.

The plaintiff also moved for the judge to recuse himself, alleging bias because the court shortened the 14‑day period required to reply to Jonathan’s counter‑affidavit and preliminary objection.

In response, Jonathan, through his lawyer Chief Chris Uche, SAN, asked the court to dismiss the suit with a cost of N50 million. He cited two prior judgments—one from the Federal High Court in the case of Andy Solomon v. Jonathan and another from the Court of Appeal in Cyracus Njoku v. Jonathan—as precedents that were dismissed.

Uche argued that the amendment to Section 137(3) of the Constitution, which bars officials who have sworn an oath more than twice from seeking the same office, cannot be applied retroactively to Jonathan, who contested in 2015.

He maintained that Jideobi is attempting to weaponise litigation for political exclusion, noting that the Constitution grants every qualified citizen the right to seek the highest office.

“He has no locus standi to bring this action and no cause of action has crystallised,” Uche said.

Uche further contended that for Jideobi to have locus standi, he must show how Jonathan’s candidacy directly affects him and must prove he is a registered voter to demonstrate an interest in governance.

Similarly, Maimuna Lamin Shiru, Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law at the Ministry of Justice, asked the court to dismiss Jideobi’s claim in its entirety.

In objection, Jideobi’s lawyer Ndubuisi Ukpai argued that being a registered voter is not a prerequisite for bringing a suit before the court, and urged the court to dismiss the objections and counter‑affidavit filed by Jonathan and the Ministry of Justice.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the second respondent, was served with the suit but did not appear in court or appoint legal representation, leading the court to exclude it as a party.

Justice Lifu has adjourned the case until 26 May to rule on the recusal application and to deliver judgment on the main suit.