Abuja: The Federal High Court in Abuja has set May 26 for judgment in a suit aiming to bar former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election. The case, filed by lawyer Johnmary Jideobi, challenges Jonathan’s eligibility for another term.
Justice Peter Lifu fixed the date. Lawyers for the plaintiff and defendants had adopted their processes and presented arguments for and against the case.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Jideobi, the plaintiff, had sued Jonathan, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation as 1st to 3rd defendants, respectively.
When the case was called on Monday, all the defendants except INEC were not represented in court.
It was confirmed that the electoral umpire had been served with all court documents. INEC still failed to appear. Justice Lifu then foreclosed INEC’s defence in the matter.
Counsel to the plaintiff, Ndubuisi Ukpai, then informed the court of their motion on notice seeking the judge’s withdrawal from the case, citing alleged bias.
Ukpai said the motion, dated May 11, was filed on the same date.
The lawyer urged the court to grant their relief.
In response, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, who appeared for the ex-president, vehemently opposed Jideobi’s motion, beginning a series of counter-arguments from the defence side.
The senior lawyer described the application as “frivolous, baseless and founded on gross misrepresentation.”
“In opposition, we filed a counter-affidavit of five paragraphs on May 12.
“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 said.
Uche, who asked the court to reject the application because he said it misuses the court’s time and resources, requested that the court dismiss it with high costs and continue with the main case.
In the same vein, the AGF, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who was represented in court by Mrs Maimuna Lami-Shiru, the Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law at the Federal Ministry of Justice, also prayed the court to dismiss the motion.
Lami-Shiru submitted that a judge may recuse himself from a case if he believes his involvement would affect the judge’s impartiality.
“The court can recuse itself when facts and events may affect impartiality and ability to deliver justice,” she said.
She said the guiding principles are drawn from the Constitution and the court’s rules.
The lawyer, however, argued that the current request to the court was a misuse of judicial procedure.
She asked the court to reject the plaintiff’s request, arguing that it lacked support, had no merit, and was not based on any valid legal rules.
According to her, he who comes to equity must come with clean hands.
Lami-Shiru, who urged the court to dismiss the motion with substantial costs, sought N2 million costs in favour of the ministry.
On the main suit, Ukpai said the originating summons was dated Oct. 3, 2025. It was filed in October 2025.
The plaintiff’s lawyer, who said the reliefs sought were on the face of the documents, prayed the court to grant the reliefs.
He said they had received a counter-affidavit from the AGF, the 3rd defendant, and sought 14 days to respond, saying they were still within time to file their response.
Justice Lifu, however, gave Ukpai permission to speak to the court in person, since a faster hearing of the case had already been granted.
After Ukpai’s submission, Uche also opposed the main application, initiating the legal proceedings.
He said their formal written response, known as a counter-affidavit, was filed on May 7.
He said that the application included two important documents, listed as Exhibits A and B.
Uche said Exhibit A is the Federal High Court judgment, which decided the case earlier. Exhibit B is the Court of Appeal judgment in a similar case.
“We urge your lordship to dismiss this case because it is based on incorrect assumptions, guesses, theoretical arguments, and has no supporting evidence or valid legal grounds,” he said. The lawyer submitted that the relevance of Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which came into effect in 2018, cannot have a retroactive effect in 2015.
“That this does not affect the 1st defendant (Jonathan),” he said.
According to him, this suit is merely an academic exercise.
He said the constitution guarantees every Nigerian, including Jonathan, the right to participate in political activities.
“We urge my lord to hold that this case has no merit. The plaintiff has no locus standi. No cause of action has crystallised,” he said.
The ex-president’s lawyer urged the court to dismiss the suit and sought N50 million in costs.
Also arguing, Lami-Shiru said the AGF filed a six-paragraph counter-affidavit dated May 18.
She prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety, especially against the 3rd defendant (AGF).
Uche also moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds of the court’s lack of jurisdiction.
He asked the court to dismiss the case because he believes it lacks legal authority.
According to the lawyer, the suit is purely speculative and founded on conjecture. It is premature and based on media speculation. There was no nomination, no election, and no cause of action.
He said that the court cannot rule on constitutional questions unless the issue has actually arisen, rather than being hypothetical.
He argued that the lawsuit misuses the court’s procedures and seeks a legal judgment on political issues before anything has happened.
He said that joining the second and third defendants was only done for technical reasons to create the impression of a proper case, not out of necessity.
He said the issues in this case had already been decided in a previous judgment by the Federal High Court in Yenagoa.
The former president asked the judge to dismiss the case entirely, saying the court lacks authority and that the suit is a misuse of the legal system.
Lami-Shiru did not oppose the preliminary objection filed on behalf of the former president.
After the judge heard the plaintiff’s response to the initial objection, Justice Lifu postponed the case until May 26 so that all the issues could be decided together in one judgment.
