- He argued that the plaintiff had not demonstrated how the issue directly affected him
- Uche also questioned the legal standing of the plaintiff, insisting there was no established cause of action
Former President Goodluck Jonathan and the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, have asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a lawsuit challenging Jonathan’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election.
Eko Hot Blog gathered that the case filed by Abuja-based lawyer Johnmary Jideobi, seeks a judicial interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to presidential tenure limits and whether Jonathan can legally seek the office again.
EDITOR’S PICK
- Fani-Kayode, Omokri Oppose Return Of Power To North Before 2031, Endorse Tinubu For 2027
- Putin defends Ukraine war amid NATO aggression claims
- Epe Stakeholders Unite in Massive Endorsement for Wale Raji, Tobun, Tinubu, Others
Jideobi argued that Jonathan had already served the maximum period permitted under the Constitution after completing the tenure of late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua following his death in 2010 and later serving another term after winning the 2011 election.
The plaintiff maintained that Jonathan’s assumption of office in May 2010 and subsequent inauguration in May 2011 meant he had exhausted the constitutional limit.
Justice Peter Lifu fixed May 26 for judgment on all pending applications in the matter, including a request by the plaintiff asking the judge to step aside over alleged bias.
The application for recusal followed claims that the court adjusted an earlier timeline granted for responses to filings made by Jonathan.
Counsel to the former president, Chris Uche (SAN), urged the court to strike out the suit, arguing that similar cases challenging Jonathan’s eligibility had already been resolved by the courts.
He further submitted that constitutional amendments restricting persons who had taken the presidential oath more than twice could not be applied retrospectively.
Uche also questioned the legal standing of the plaintiff, insisting there was no established cause of action and that the suit lacked sufficient basis.
He argued that the plaintiff had not demonstrated how the issue directly affected him.
Also opposing the suit, the Federal Ministry of Justice, represented by Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law, Dr. Maimuna Lamin Shiru, asked the court to dismiss the matter in its entirety.
However, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Ndubuisi Ukpai, challenged the objections raised by Jonathan and the Ministry of Justice, maintaining that the action was properly filed and should proceed.
FURTHER READING
