2027: SAN Describes Suit To Bar Jonathan As Abuse Of Court Process

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Oba Maduabuchi, has described the suit filed to prevent ex-President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting in 2027 is “an abuse of court process.”

In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025, a lawyer, Johnmary Jideobi, sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining Jonathan from “presenting himself to any political party in Nigeria for nomination as its candidate” for the 2027 poll or any future election.

Jideobi also asked the court to bar the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from accepting or publishing Jonathan’s name as a candidate, and to direct the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to ensure compliance with the court’s decision. INEC and the AGF are listed as the second and third defendants.

In his supporting affidavit, deposed to by one Emmanuel Agida, the plaintiff described himself as an “advocate of constitutionalism and the rule of law.”

He argued that Jonathan, having completed the tenure of the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and subsequently served a full four-year term after winning the 2011 election, had already exhausted the constitutional limit of two terms.

But speaking when he featured on ARISE TV’s Morning Show, Maduabuchi said Jonathan’s qualification or disqualification had already been adjudicated in Yenegoa, and since “nobody has taken that issue on appeal … until that judgment is set aside, it remains what the law is.”

Maduabuchi said any party who takes that settled issue to a court of coordinate jurisdiction is simply “abusing the process of the court” and branded such action as one by “a busy body.”

He observed that what controls any situation is the law in force “when the act in issue was done,” asking whether Section 1373 existed in 2010 when Jonathan took the oath of office.

He said the law only came into effect in 2018 and “when Goodluck Jonathan was taking the oath of office … there was no statutory limitation … which could inhibit him from running his constitutionally guaranteed two terms.”

He questioned whether Jonathan swore any oath after the amendment of 1373 and likened attempts to apply a later law earlier to punishing someone under a law that did not exist when the act occurred.

He recalled that judges’ retirement age was formerly 65, then changed to 70, and asked if a judge who had retired just before that change would sue to be reinstated under the new law.

He emphasised that law demands certainty, and noted that “in 2011 and 2010, when Goodluck Jonathan swore the oath … Prohibition of 1372 was not in existence. It was not binding on him.”

He said no “pyrotechnic” argument can breathe existence into a law that did not exist.

He further referenced a case in the Federal Court of Appeal which affirmed that Jonathan had the right to run and one cannot apply retrospective laws to him.