|
Listen to article
|
The controversy over the eligibility of former President Goodluck Jonathan to join the 2027 presidential race took a twist last week when it emerged that a court had cleared the obstacle to his being sworn in for the third time as president.
Critics had cited Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which provides that no elected person into public office in Nigeria shall be sworn-in more than twice, basing their argument on the former president’s swearing-in in 2010 after his predecessor, the late President Umaru Yar’Adua, died in office, and 2011 when he won his own election. He left office in 2025 after losing reelection and the Section 137(3) wasn’t law until 2018, three years later, triggering the argument on whether or not the law can apply to him retroactively.
Significantly, some leaders of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) are pushing for him to contest on the platform of the party the 2027 presidential election.
Read Also: Wike’s Plan To Destablize PDP To Field Jonathan, Obi – Yusuf
The Eastern Updates obtained the judgment of the Federal High Court Yenagoa which heard the case and the trial judge, Hon. Justice Isa H. Dashen, while reviewing the submissions made before him on May 27, 2022, quoted copiously from the Counter-Affidavit in which Jonathan made his case, saying he could not be legally stopped from participating in presidential election in the future based on Section 137(3) of the Constitution.
Dashen agreed with the former president’s position.
Curiously, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which were both joined as Defendants in the suit filed by two persons who described themselves as APC members (Andy Solomon and Ibidiye Abraham), failed to make appearances despite being served with all the processes, forcing the presiding judge to remark that they agreed with all the facts of the case as pleaded by the Plaintiffs and Jonathan who was the First Defendant.
On this, he noted: “As earlier stated, both 2nd and 3rd Defendants (APC and INEC) did not file any processes in response or reaction thereto despite service of the Originating process on them.
“In the locus classicus case of OYEYIPO VS OYINLOYE (1987) INWLR (Part 50) 350, the Apex Court held thus: ‘A Defendant who fails to enter appearance or file Counter-Affidavit in response to the averments in support of the Originating Summons would be presumed to have Demurred and admitted the facts deposed to in the Affidavit filed in support Originating Summons.
“See the recent case of FUTMINA & ORS VS OLUTAYO (2017)
LPELR- 43827 (SC) and CHEVRON (NIG) LTD VS IMO STATE
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY AND ORS (2016) LPELR- 41563 (CA) where the Appellate Courts confirmed the above position”.
