2027 Presidential Poll: Jonathan’s eligibility case shifts to Court of Appeal

…lawyer raises three grounds of appeal

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA — The legal move to bar former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election has shifted to the Court of Appeal.

An Abuja-based legal practitioner has approached the division of the appellate court in Abuja to set aside the judgment that declared Jonathan eligible to seek a return to the presidency.

The lawyer, Mr. Jideobi Johnmary, raised three grounds and asked the appellate court to consider them and declare the May 26 verdict of the lower court a nullity.

In his first ground of appeal, he argued that Justice Peter Lifu, who cleared Jonathan to vie for the presidency again, “erred in law and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice” when he concurrently heard a motion that sought his recusal and the substantive suit on May 18 and delivered a composite ruling on May 26, “thereby breaching the appellant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the amended 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

On the particulars of the error, he told the appellate court that the appellant had, on May 11, filed a motion praying Justice Lifu to recuse himself from further hearing the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025, as well as an order returning the case file to the Chief Judge of the court for reassignment to another judge.

“The matter came up for hearing on the 18th day of May, 2026. The appellant’s counsel drew the attention of the learned trial judge to the pendency of the motion for recusal and urged the learned trial judge to first hear and determine the motion for recusal one way or the other.

“Despite the plea of the appellant’s counsel, the learned trial judge insisted on hearing both the motion for recusal and the originating summons together in the same proceedings and adjourned for a composite judgment encompassing the ruling and the judgment.

“A motion for recusal challenges the judge’s right to even hear the case. It is an issue that goes directly to the judge’s impartiality.

“The motion for recusal having been formally filed, the learned trial judge was under a duty to first deliver a ruling dismissing the motion before he could validly take any further step in the substantive suit.

“Deciding the recusal motion simultaneously with the substantive matter defeats the entire purpose of the application.

“Hearing the substantive originating summons first on the 18th day of May, 2026, before deciding whether he could hear it on the 26th day of May, 2026, simply means that the learned trial judge put the cart before the horse by deciding the civil right of the appellant as ventilated in the motion for recusal without according him a fair hearing.

“By delivering a composite ruling, the trial judge sat as a judge in his own cause (nemo judex in causa sua) while determining the substantive rights of the parties.

“By refusing to decide first whether he was supposed to hear the substantive originating summons or not — his impartiality having been called into question — the learned trial judge denied the appellant his fair hearing rights, which are sacrosanct and indubitably entrenched in Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

“The learned trial judge reached a perverse decision and denied the appellant fair hearing when he failed and/or refused to decide the motion for recusal and determine it one way or the other firstly before proceeding to hear the substantive originating summons.

“Effectively, the learned trial judge heard the originating summons on 18th May, 2026, but determined the motion on whether he could hear the originating summons, which he had already heard, on the 26th day of May, 2026, in his composite ruling.

“The procedure adopted by the lower court denied the appellant an impartial tribunal, rendering the entire proceedings leading to the final judgment a complete nullity.

“It is settled law that a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing in any trial or investigation nullifies such trial or investigation, and any decision taken thereon is also a nullity.

“The breach of the right to fair hearing in any proceeding therefore vitiates the entire proceedings. Chitra Knitting & Weaving Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Akingbade (2016) LPELR-40437 (SC).

“Arising from paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 above, the judgment of the learned trial judge is perverse and resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice and a breach of the appellant’s right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” the appellant added.

In ground two of the appeal, the appellant insisted that Justice Lifu erred in law when he proceeded to hear and determine the substantive suit despite the pendency of a motion challenging his competence and impartiality to preside over the matter.

“A motion for recusal challenges the core jurisdictional competence of the presiding judge.

“The lower court was duty-bound to determine the issue of recusal as a preliminary threshold point before taking any further steps in the substantive matter. By fusing the preliminary challenge with the substantive merits, the learned trial judge acted without jurisdiction, making the final orders void ab initio.”

Besides, the appellant contended that the lower court arbitrarily awarded punitive costs of N20 million against him “for failing to withdraw the suit, thereby exercising his judicial discretion whimsically and on wrong legal principles.”

“The learned trial judge penalised the appellant for exercising his constitutional right to fair hearing and access to court by fully ventilating his response to the respondent’s preliminary objection.

“The award of ₦20,000,000.00 in costs is highly excessive, punitive, and unprecedented for an interlocutory or final contest, and is completely divorced from the actual, reasonable expenses incurred by the respondent.

“The lower court failed to act judicially and judiciously, as costs are meant to be compensatory for expenses incurred, not a fine or weapon of oppression to punish a litigant for presenting an argument before the court.

“The trial judge erroneously assumed that the appellant’s failure to withdraw the suit amounted to ‘wasting the court’s time,’ ignoring the fact that the application of res judicata or an existing ruling is a triable legal issue that required formal judicial determination,” the notice of appeal dated May 29, further read.

As part of the reliefs he is seeking, the appellant urged the appellate court to issue an order remitting the substantive suit back to the Chief Judge of the high court for reassignment to another judge for trial de novo (fresh hearing).

Aside from ex-President Jonathan, the other respondents in the appeal are the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation.

The appellate court has yet to fix a date for the appeal to be heard.

It will be recalled that the appellant went to court to query Jonathan’s eligibility on the premise that he had already been sworn in as President on two occasions.

He asked the court to determine whether, having regard to Sections 1(1), (2) and (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, Jonathan is eligible to contest for the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Upon the determination of the question, he sought, among other reliefs:

“An order of perpetual injunction of this Honourable Court restraining the first defendant [Goodluck Ebele Jonathan] from presenting himself to any political party in Nigeria for nomination as its candidate for the general election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria holding in 2027 and other years to come.

“An order of perpetual injunction of this Honourable Court restraining the second defendant [INEC] from either accepting from any political party in Nigeria the name of the first defendant [Goodluck Ebele Jonathan] or publishing same as a candidate for election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria holding in 2027 and other years to come.”

As well as “an order of this Honourable Court directing the third defendant [Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation] to ensure compliance with the decisions and orders of this court.”

However, in his judgment, Justice Peter Lifu held that there was no legal impediment preventing Jonathan from seeking a return to the presidency.

The trial court noted that the issue of Jonathan’s eligibility had earlier been decided by a division of the court in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, and by the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

Justice Lifu said he was bound by those existing judgments and dismissed as frivolous and an abuse of process the legal action brought by the Abuja-based legal practitioner against the former president.

He found that the plaintiff lacked locus standi (the legal standing to sue), having failed to establish any cognisable loss arising from his assumption that Jonathan intends to participate in the forthcoming presidential contest.

Furthermore, the high court upheld preliminary objections that ex-President Jonathan and the AGF, who are defendants in the matter, filed to challenge the competence of the suit.

Although INEC was also listed as a defendant, it failed to file any process either in support of or in opposition to the plaintiff’s claim.

While dismissing the suit for want of merit, Justice Lifu awarded costs of N20 million against the litigant, to be paid to Jonathan.

The court also awarded costs of N1 million against the plaintiff, to be paid to the AGF.

Even though Jonathan has not formally declared his intention to contest the 2027 presidential election, insinuations are rife that he may be considering a return to the presidency.

The Kabiru Turaki-led faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has already offered the former president a waiver as the party’s sole presidential candidate.

The post 2027 Presidential Poll: Jonathan’s eligibility case shifts to Court of Appeal appeared first on Vanguard News.