Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Oba Maduabuchi, has described the recent legal action aimed at preventing former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting in the 2027 presidential election as a clear abuse of court process.
The suit, filed by Abuja-based lawyer Johnmary Jideobi, seeks a perpetual injunction barring Jonathan from contesting in 2027 or any future election. Filed under suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025, it also requests that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) be restrained from accepting or publishing Jonathan’s name, and that the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) be compelled to enforce such a court order.
Jideobi’s argument hinges on the belief that Jonathan has already served two terms—completing the tenure of the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, then winning and completing a full term from 2011 to 2015.
However, appearing on ARISE TV’s Morning Show, Maduabuchi dismissed the suit as baseless and redundant, pointing out that a court in Yenagoa had already ruled on Jonathan’s eligibility—and that judgment still stands, unchallenged on appeal.
> “Until that judgment is set aside, it remains the law,” Maduabuchi asserted, stressing that revisiting the same matter in another court of equal jurisdiction constitutes judicial abuse.
He also challenged the legal argument regarding constitutional term limits, noting that Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which bars a person from taking the presidential oath more than twice, was only introduced in 2018—years after Jonathan took office in 2010 and 2011.
> “The law that governs any act is the one in force when the act occurred,” he said, emphasizing that no law existed in 2010 or 2011 that prevented Jonathan from seeking a second term.
Maduabuchi further illustrated his point by comparing it to judicial retirement laws:
> “If a judge retired under the previous retirement age of 65, and the age was later raised to 70, that doesn’t mean the retired judge can return to office under the new law.”
He concluded that applying a retrospective interpretation of the law is not only legally flawed but also constitutionally dangerous.
> “No amount of legal gymnastics can make a law apply retroactively. When Jonathan swore the oath in 2010 and 2011, Section 137(3) did not exist. So it could not have limited him.”
The SAN referenced previous Court of Appeal decisions affirming Jonathan’s right to contest and reiterated that the legal principle of certainty must prevail in a constitutional democracy.
—
Would you like this adapted for a social media post, newsletter blurb, or a headline summary?
