Former President Goodluck Jonathan has kicked against a suit in the federal high court Abuja seeking to disqualify him from running for president in 2027.
The suit filed by a lawyer Johnmary Jideobi, dated October 6, 2025, is seeking to stop the former Nigerian leader from participating in next year’s presidential election, on the basis that he has been sworn-in twice as president of the Federal Republic.
The suit is coming on the heels of recent moves by some political actors in the country to drag the former leader into the presidential race to challenge incumbent President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
On Thursday, some African Democratic Congress, ADC leaders visited the ex-president in his Abuja home to woo him to join other presidential aspirants seeking to dislodge President Tinubu next year.
Also, on Friday the Tanimu Turaki faction of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, during a visit called on him to contest for the country’s highest office again.
The ex- president, in his response, had told the two delegations from the ADC and PDP that he was still consulting to decide whether he would run or not as Commander-in-chief.
In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025, Jideobi is seeking some reliefs from the court, in his quest to stop Jonathan, which includes; an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the former Nigerin leader from from presenting himself to any political party in the country for the purpose of contesting next year’s presidential election.
But the former president has countered the suit in a counter-affidavit filed by his lawyer, Chief Chris Uche, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, on May 5 saying the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to carry out the action, and that the matter of his qualification to run for president has been settled by two courts, a federal high court and the Court of Appeal.
In a Notice of Preliminary Objection, Jonathan stressed that Jideobi’s suit lacked merit and should be dismissed immediately, describing the suit as a gross abuse of court process, adding that the plaintiff has not proved how the participation of Jonathan in the 2027 election will affect him.
“The plaintiff has no personal interest or legal right whatsoever affected by the subject matter of this suit.”
In a 14 paragraph affidavit deposed in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, Jonathan maintained that the plaintiff’s suit is utterly speculative, academic, hypothetical, and not based on any real or existing dispute.
“The plaintiff relies on media publications and conjecture suggesting that the 1st defendant may contest a future election.
“The 1st defendant has (i) not declared any intention to contest any election; (ii) not been nominated as a candidate; and not participated in any electoral process giving rise to this suit.”
Referring to Section 137(3) of the Constitution (as amended) which was introduced by a constitutional amendment (Act No. 10 of 2017) which came into force in June 2018, the deponent, Emmanuel Tsebo, told the court that Jonathan “has not been elected as President more than once”, adding, “That the tenure of the 1st defendant ended in 2015, prior to the coming into force of the said amendment.”
He added, “That the said constitutional amendment does not state that it applies retrospectively.
“That by settled principles of law, constitutional provisions do not operate retrospectively to affect vested rights.”
Besides, the deponent averred that the issue raised by the plaintiff concerning the constitutional eligibility of Jonathan had already been litigated upon and determined by competent Courts of law.
“That in Suit No. FHC/YNG/CS/86/2022 between Andy Solomon & Anor vs. Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan & Ors, the Federal High Court sitting at Yenagoa unequivocally held that the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution do not apply retrospectively to the 1st Defendant, and a certified true copy of the judgement is annexed herewith as Exhibit “A”.
“That the said judgement remains valid, subsisting and binding.
“That the Court of Appeal in the case of Cyriacus Njoku vs. Goodluck Jonathan & Ors, Appeal No CA/A/574/2013 also held that the 1st defendant’s assumption of office upon the demise of President Umaru Yar’Adua did not amount to an elected presidential tenure within the contemplation of the Constitution, and therefore did not count as a prior elected term. A certified true copy of the judgment is annexed herewith as Exhibit “6B”.
“That the Court of Appeal further held that the 1st defendant was running his “first term” after his election in 2011.
“That the said judgement of the Court of Appeal remains valid, subsisting and binding.
“That the plaintiff’s present suit seeks to relitigate the same issue already determined by courts of competent jurisdiction.
“That this suit is a collateral attack on subsisting judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction.
“That the plaintiff’s suit seeks to convert this Honourable Court to sit as a Court of Appeal over the judgments of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal.”
Discover more from The Source
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
