When former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan quietly walked into the Abuja residence of Senator David Mark, the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), few in Nigeria’s political establishment expected that the visit would reignite one of the most contentious debates in the nation’s recent political history — the question of Jonathan’s eligibility to contest for president again.
Barely days after the visit, the Federal High Court in Abuja became the new battlefield for that question. A lawyer, Johnmary Jideobi, filed a suit asking the court to stop Jonathan from participating in the 2027 presidential election — or, indeed, from contesting any future presidential race in Nigeria. The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025, has once again dragged the former president into the center of a constitutional and political storm that cuts deep into Nigeria’s democratic fabric.
The Lawsuit That Rekindled a National Debate
The case, though only recently filed, has already stirred significant national attention. In the suit, Jideobi — a constitutional lawyer known for his activism — seeks a perpetual injunction restraining Jonathan from “presenting himself to any political party in Nigeria for nomination as its presidential candidate.”
He is also asking the court to bar the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from accepting or publishing Jonathan’s name as a presidential candidate, and to compel the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to enforce any decision the court makes.
According to Jideobi, Jonathan has already exhausted his constitutional limit of two terms as president, having first completed the tenure of the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and later served a full term from 2011 to 2015.
In an affidavit supporting the suit, one Emmanuel Agida, who described himself as an “advocate of constitutionalism and the rule of law,” stated that Jonathan’s rumored 2027 ambition would violate Section 137(3) of the Nigerian Constitution, which prohibits anyone who has been sworn in twice as president from seeking re-election.
“If the first defendant eventually wins the 2027 general election as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria—which spans 2027 to 2031—he will have exceeded eight years being the cumulative maximum years a Nigerian President is to stay in office,” the plaintiff argued.
The case, filed “in the public interest,” seeks a declaration that Jonathan “is ineligible to stand for or occupy the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” and that INEC “lacks constitutional power” to accept or publish his name as a candidate.
So far, no hearing date has been fixed. But the lawsuit has already become a lightning rod for constitutional scholars, political strategists, and supporters of the former president, who see it as both a legal test and a political trap.
A Legal Question That Refuses to Die
This is not the first time the issue of Jonathan’s eligibility has surfaced. In 2022, during the buildup to the 2023 presidential election, a similar case was filed before the Federal High Court in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.
That case, presided over by Justice Isa Dashen, was dismissed for lacking merit. The judge ruled that Section 137(3) — which limits the tenure of any person who completes another president’s term — came into effect after Jonathan had left office. Therefore, the provision could not be applied retroactively to disqualify him.
The 2022 ruling effectively cleared Jonathan to contest, and for a time, speculation ran wild that he might join the race under the All Progressives Congress (APC). Indeed, some APC chieftains were said to have purchased nomination forms on his behalf, citing his national acceptability and perceived neutrality. But Jonathan eventually distanced himself from the move and chose to maintain his statesmanlike posture.
Now, three years later, the same issue has resurfaced — with renewed political undertones.
The Lawyer Behind the Lawsuit
Johnmary Jideobi, the lawyer who filed the fresh case, is no stranger to controversial public interest litigation. Known for his fiery courtroom arguments and activism around constitutional interpretation, Jideobi has often positioned himself as a defender of the rule of law against political manipulation.
In filing the latest case, he claims to be acting to protect the sanctity of Nigeria’s Constitution. He cites media reports suggesting that Jonathan is being courted by powerful political blocs ahead of the 2027 elections — an idea he describes as a potential breach of constitutional limits.
His argument is simple: Jonathan, by completing Yar’Adua’s tenure (from May 2010 to May 2011) and then serving a full four-year term (from 2011 to 2015), has already served as president twice — even if the first tenure was only partial. To allow him contest again, Jideobi argues, would amount to “stretching constitutional elasticity to a dangerous point.”
The Constitutional Grey Area
At the heart of the case is the interpretation of Section 137(3) of the Nigerian Constitution. The section states:
“A person who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as President shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.”
On the surface, that clause appears to back Jideobi’s argument. However, constitutional scholars note that the amendment containing Section 137(3) was signed into law in 2018, three years after Jonathan left office.
By that logic, the law cannot retroactively apply to him — a reasoning the 2022 Bayelsa court upheld.
But Jideobi’s suit takes a different angle. He argues that the spirit of the Constitution — not just the letter — should guide interpretation. In his view, the constitutional intent is to prevent any individual from holding presidential power for more than eight years, regardless of the timing of the amendment.
Legal analysts say the case will test whether Nigeria’s courts will stick with the 2022 precedent or carve a new legal path that limits future ambitions of former presidents.
Jonathan’s Political Shadow Over 2027
While Jonathan has not publicly declared any intention to contest, his name continues to echo across political corridors. Over the past few months, several power blocs within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) have reportedly floated his name as a potential consensus candidate for 2027.
The renewed interest in Jonathan stems from a mix of political nostalgia, strategic calculation, and regional balance politics. Many within the North view him as a neutral figure who could bridge the growing divide between North and South while calming political tensions under President Bola Tinubu’s administration.
Former Information Minister Professor Jerry Gana recently declared that Jonathan would contest — and that he “will defeat the APC in 2027.” Similarly, former Jigawa Governor Sule Lamido and Bauchi State Governor Bala Mohammed have spoken glowingly of a “Jonathan comeback” as a unifying project.
His recent visit to Senator David Mark — who now chairs the ADC — added fuel to the speculation. Though ADC’s spokesman, Bolaji Abdullahi, described the visit as “private,” insiders claim it was part of ongoing 2027 consultations. The ADC, a coalition-friendly party that has positioned itself as a platform for consensus politics, is said to be weighing Jonathan’s acceptability across regional lines.
The Political Calculations Behind the Legal Battle
Analysts believe the fresh lawsuit is more than just a legal question — it’s a political preemptive strike. In Nigeria’s high-stakes political chessboard, litigation is often used as a strategic tool to shape the field of contenders.
By seeking a judicial declaration now — two years before the 2027 elections — opponents of a Jonathan comeback may be trying to shut the door early, long before campaign season begins.
A senior PDP member, who requested anonymity, told this reporter:
“What you’re seeing is lawfare — political warfare through the courts. Some people know that if Jonathan runs, he’ll attract bipartisan support, especially from the North. Blocking him through the courts may be easier than facing him at the polls.”
Others, however, dismiss the lawsuit as a distraction meant to stir controversy and weaken potential opposition alliances.
“The Constitution is clear,” says Lagos-based constitutional lawyer Chidi Nwakama. “Section 137(3) came after Jonathan left office. You cannot apply it backward. This is another attempt to politicize the judiciary.”
Why Jonathan Still Matters
Nine years after leaving office, Goodluck Jonathan remains a paradox in Nigerian politics — a man whose electoral defeat in 2015 turned him into a symbol of peaceful democratic transition. His famous concession call to Muhammadu Buhari became a moral benchmark for African democracy.
Since then, Jonathan has reinvented himself as a statesman, leading mediation missions across Africa and working with organizations such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union (AU).
Yet, at home, his political relevance endures. His image — calm, conciliatory, and moderate — stands in contrast to the fiery partisanship that dominates Nigeria’s current politics. For many Nigerians, especially in the South-South and the North-Central, Jonathan represents a bridge between regions, religions, and political ideologies.
But that same symbolism makes him a political target. A comeback bid — even if still speculative — has implications for both major parties. For the PDP, it could unify fractured factions. For the APC, it could complicate President Tinubu’s re-election calculus.
The Broader Implications for Nigerian Democracy
The case of Johnmary Jideobi v. Goodluck Jonathan & Ors is about more than one man’s eligibility. It raises a profound question about constitutional interpretation, political fairness, and the evolving nature of Nigeria’s democracy.
If the court sides with Jideobi, it could set a precedent restricting any former president — past or future — who ever completed another’s term from contesting again, regardless of when they served. But if the court upholds the 2022 Yenagoa ruling, it will reaffirm that constitutional amendments cannot apply retroactively — a principle crucial to the rule of law.
Either way, the outcome will influence not just Jonathan’s fate, but the future of presidential eligibility debates in Nigeria.
Conclusion: Between Law and Politics
As Nigeria inches toward the 2027 general elections, the reemergence of Jonathan in both legal filings and political speculation reveals the fragile interplay between law and power.
The court’s eventual decision — whenever it comes — will either close a controversial chapter in Nigeria’s political history or reopen the door to a dramatic comeback by one of its most enigmatic leaders.
For now, Jonathan remains silent, his camp neither confirming nor denying the speculation. But silence, in politics, is rarely neutral. Behind the quiet diplomacy, meetings, and lawsuits, a larger struggle is unfolding — a struggle over Nigeria’s democratic memory, constitutional boundaries, and the enduring question of who gets to define the future of leadership in Africa’s largest democracy.
Post a Comment