A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to prevent former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election, ruling that the case lacked merit and constituted an abuse of court process.
Delivering judgment, Justice Peter Lifu held that the plaintiff, Johnmary Jideobi, failed to establish the legal standing required to institute the suit, noting that he did not demonstrate how Jonathan’s potential candidacy would personally affect him.
The court subsequently struck out the suit and imposed a total cost of N21 million against the plaintiff. Of the amount, N20 million was awarded to Jonathan, while N1 million was awarded to the Attorney General of the Federation.
Justice Lifu described the case as frivolous and unnecessary, stressing that similar legal challenges had previously been dismissed by competent courts. He referenced earlier decisions in Andy Solomon v. Jonathan at the Federal High Court and Cyracus Njoku v. Jonathan at the Court of Appeal, stating that the legal position on the matter had already been settled.
The judge also faulted the plaintiff and his counsel for proceeding with the suit despite being aware of the earlier rulings.
The suit, filed in October 2025, sought a declaration on whether Jonathan remained constitutionally eligible to seek the presidency in 2027 under the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
The plaintiff argued that Jonathan had already exhausted the constitutional limit of two terms in office, having completed the remaining tenure of late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua between 2010 and 2011 before winning and serving a full four-year term following the 2011 presidential election.
Jideobi had asked the court to restrain Jonathan from presenting himself as a presidential candidate and to stop the Independent National Electoral Commission from accepting or publishing his name for the 2027 election or any future presidential contest.
The Attorney General of the Federation, the Independent National Electoral Commission, and Jonathan were listed as defendants in the case.
