As conversations around the 2027 presidential election continue to gain traction, the question of whether former President Goodluck Jonathan can legally return to the ballot has been a subject of public discourse.
A suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025, filed before the federal high court in Abuja by Johnmary Jideobi, a lawyer, is asking the court to declare Jonathan ineligible to contest for president again on the grounds that he had already taken the presidential oath twice — first in 2010 after the death of former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, and again in 2011 after Jonathan won the presidential election.
Jonathan was Nigeria’s vice-president between 2007 and 2010. He became the president in May 2010 following Yar’Adua’s death and completed the latter’s tenure.
He won the 2011 presidential election but failed in his attempt to secure a second term in office in 2015
But the legal battle over Jonathan’s eligibility is far from new.
THE FIRST BATTLE: 2012/2013
The first major legal challenge emerged ahead of the 2015 presidential election.
In a suit marked FCT/HC/CV/2449/2012, Cyriacus Njoku, the plaintiff, approached an FCT high court in Abuja seeking to stop Jonathan from contesting another election after his 2011 victory.
Njoku argued that Jonathan’s first oath of office on May 6, 2010, when he succeeded Yar’Adua should count as a presidential term.
According to him, Jonathan’s second oath in 2011 meant he had already exhausted the constitutional limit.
The plaintiff asked the court to restrain Jonathan, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from presenting or accepting his candidature for the 2015 election.
Jonathan, however, argued that he had only been “elected” president once — in 2011.
His legal team maintained that his ascension in 2010 was by constitutional succession and not through an election process contemplated under section 137(1)(b) of the constitution.
Although the court said the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to bring the suit, Mudashiru Oniyangi, presiding judge, went on to determine the merit of the case.
In its judgement delivered on March 1, 2013, the court held that section 137(1)(b), which disqualifies a person who has been “elected” president at two previous elections, could not apply to Jonathan because he had only won one election.
Oniyangi said Jonathan was neither a presidential aspirant in the 2007 election nor was he sworn in as president in 2007.
The court also held that Jonathan’s 2010 oath constituted a constitutional succession following Yar’Adua’s death and did not amount to an election.
COURT OF APPEAL
Aggrieved, Njoku proceeded to challenge the FCT high court’s decision at the court of appeal.
On March 3, 2015, a five-member panel of the appellate court affirmed the judgement of the FCT high court.
The court held that the word “election”, used in section 137(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, “when given its ordinary grammatical meaning, connotes a process where voting is employed, to choose a person for a political office”.
“The process of primaries, nomination, voting, collating and announcement of results must of necessity be involved. These did not take place when the 1st respondent stepped into the shoes of President Yar’adua on the 6th of May 2010,” the court held.
“Again, the succession of a Vice-President to the office of a President who died, in accordance with section 146(1) of the 1999 Constitution, cannot be “deemed an election”, especially for the purpose of taking away a right that has been vested.”
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
A CONSTITUTIONAL SHIFT
Years after the 2015 eligibility dispute, the legal landscape changed.
In 2018, Nigeria introduced the fourth alteration to the 1999 constitution, inserting section 137(3).
The provision states that a person sworn in as president to complete the tenure of another elected president “shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term”.
The amendment directly addressed situations like Jonathan’s succession in 2010.
THE 2022 SUIT
The constitutional debate resurfaced in 2022 ahead of the presidential election.
Andy Solomon and another plaintiff approached the federal high court in Yenagoa, Bayelsa state, seeking to stop Jonathan from contesting the presidential election under the All Progressives Congress (APC).
This time, the plaintiffs anchored their case squarely on section 137(3) of the amended constitution.
They argued that Jonathan’s oath in 2010 to complete Yar’Adua’s tenure, followed by his election in 2011, constitutionally barred him from seeking another term.
The plaintiffs asked the court to declare Jonathan disqualified from contesting the 2023 election and restrain both APC and INEC from recognising his candidature if he decides to contest.
Jonathan’s defence team argued that section 137(3), introduced in 2018, could not be applied retrospectively against him because his right to contest had accrued before the constitutional amendment came into force.
He also relied on earlier judicial interpretations that distinguished constitutional succession from election.
The federal high court agreed with Jonathan’s position.
The court held that section 137(3) became operational in June 2018 and could not retroactively disqualify Jonathan from contesting future elections.
The judge further held that Jonathan had only been elected president once in 2011, while his 2010 oath arose from constitutional succession rather than an electoral process.
The court also referenced earlier appellate decisions, including the case filed by Njoku.
PRESENT DAY
The latest suit now attempts to reopen the constitutional argument once again.
Jonathan’s defence team, led by Chris Uche, in the ongoing case, heavily references both the 2013 and 2022 decisions, arguing that the issue has already been settled by courts of competent jurisdiction and is yet to be set aside by the supreme court.
His legal team also contends that the new suit amounts to an attempt to relitigate issues previously determined by the courts.
