Former President Goodluck Jonathan has challenged a lawsuit seeking to bar him from contesting future presidential elections, insisting that no provision of the Nigerian Constitution disqualifies him from seeking the presidency again.
Jonathan’s position was contained in court documents filed in response to a suit instituted by lawyer Johnmary Jideobi before the Federal High Court in Abuja. The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025, named Jonathan, the Independent National Electoral Commission and the Attorney General of the Federation as defendants.
The plaintiff is asking the court to determine whether, based on Sections 1 and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution, Jonathan remains eligible to contest for the office of President of Nigeria.
Jideobi argued that Jonathan had already exhausted the constitutional two-term limit after completing the tenure of late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and subsequently serving a full elected term following his victory in the 2011 presidential election.
He further urged the court to restrain Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election and prevent INEC from accepting or publishing his name as a candidate.
However, in a counter-affidavit filed by his counsel, Chris Uche (SAN), Jonathan maintained that he had only been elected president once and merely completed Yar’Adua’s tenure after his death in office.
Jonathan argued that the constitutional amendment being relied upon by the plaintiff came into effect years after he left office in 2015 and therefore could not be applied retroactively.
According to the court filings, Section 137(3) of the Constitution was introduced through the 2017 constitutional amendment and only became operational in June 2018.
“The tenure of the first defendant ended in 2015, several years prior to the coming into force of the amendment,” the document stated.
“The constitutional amendment does not state that it applies retrospectively. By settled principles of law, constitutional provisions do not operate retrospectively to affect vested rights.”
Jonathan further insisted that he remains constitutionally qualified to contest the presidency in 2027 if he chooses to do so, adding that no individual or group could use “speculative action” to deny him or Nigerians the right to participate in a democratic process.
The former president also cited previous court decisions that had already settled the issue of his eligibility.
He referenced a 2022 judgment of the Federal High Court in Yenagoa, which reportedly held that Section 137(3) does not apply retrospectively to him, as well as a Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Cyriacus Njoku vs. Goodluck Jonathan, which ruled that his assumption of office after Yar’Adua’s death did not amount to an elected presidential tenure under the Constitution.
According to Jonathan, the appellate court further held that his 2011 election constituted his “first term” as president.
In a separate preliminary objection, Jonathan also challenged the competence of the suit, urging the court to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
He described the action as an attempt to relitigate issues already decided by competent courts and accused the plaintiff of engaging in a “collateral attack” on subsisting judgments.
Jonathan further argued that the plaintiff lacked the legal standing to institute the suit, noting that he was neither a presidential aspirant nor a candidate affected by the matter.
“The suit is speculative, hypothetical and academic,” Jonathan stated, adding that it was based largely on media reports and political speculation rather than any concrete dispute.
He also faulted the inclusion of INEC and the Attorney General of the Federation as defendants, describing their joinder as a “cosmetic jurisdictional artifice” since no wrongdoing was alleged against them.
When the matter came up on Friday, plaintiff’s counsel, Ndubuisi Ukpai, informed the court that Jonathan had only recently served him with a preliminary objection, counter-affidavit and memorandum of appearance, and requested more time to respond.
Uche, however, told the court that his client acted swiftly after learning about the case through media reports because of the public importance of the matter.
He questioned the rationale behind reopening issues that had already been resolved up to the Court of Appeal.
“The issue of the eligibility of the first defendant has been determined by this court and has also been pronounced upon by the Court of Appeal,” Uche argued.
At that point, the presiding judge, Justice Peter Lifu, cautioned counsel against delving too deeply into arguments ahead of the hearing.
“Don’t go far. Keep your gun powder dry,” the judge remarked.
Justice Lifu subsequently adjourned the case till May 11 for hearing of both the preliminary objection and the substantive suit, directing all parties to file necessary processes before noon on Monday.
