The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has adjourned the judgement on the suit challenging the eligibility of former President, Goodluck Jonathan, to contest in the 2027 Elections.
At the hearing of the suit filed by a lawyer, Johnmary Jideobi, the presiding judge, Justice Peter Lifu fixed May 26 for the judgement on the suit after lawyers to the plaintiff and the defendants adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the case.
According to reports, Jideobi, the plaintiff, had sued Jonathan, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation as 1at to 3rd defendants respectively.
When the case was called on Monday, all the defendants except INEC was not represented in court.
When it was confirmed that the electoral umpire had been duly served with all the court documents and failed to appear, Justice Lifu foreclosed its defence in the matter.
Counsel to the plaintiff, Ndubuisi Ukpai then informed the court of their motion on notice seeking the judge’s withdrawal from the case, citing alleged bias.
Ukpai said the motion, dated May 11, was filed same date.
The lawyer urged the court to grant their reliefs.
Responding, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, who appeared for the ex-president, vehemently opposed Jideobi’s motion
The senior lawyer described the application as “frivolous, baseless and founded on gross misrepresentation.”
“In opposition, we filed a counter affidavit of five paragraphs on May 12.
“We want my lord to rely on the record of this honourable court which has entirely dismissed the plaintiff’s entire claims as false and perjury,” he said.
Uche, who urged the court to discountenance the application as constituting a gross abuse of the court process, prayed the court to dismiss same with substantial cost and proceed with the case.
In the same vein, the AGF, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who was represented in court by Mrs Maimuna Lami-Shiru, the Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law, Federal Ministry of Justice, also prayed the judge to dismissed the motion.
Lami-Shiru submitted that a judge may recuse himself from a case if he feels that his involvement will affect the impartiality of the suit.
“This court can only recuse itself from a suit where the facts and events may affect the impartiality and ability to do justice in the case,” she said.
She said that the guiding principles are drawned from the constitution and the rules of the court.
The lawyer, however, argued that the instant motion was an abuse of court process.
She urged the court to dismiss the plaintiiff’s motion as being baseless, unmeritirious and unfounded on proper provisions of the law.
According to her, he who comes to equity must come with clean hands.
Lami-Shiru, who urged the court to dimiss the motion with substantial cost, sought N2 million cost in favour of the ministry.
On the main suit, Ukpai said the originating summon was dated Oct. 3, 2025, but filed on Oct., 2025.
The plaintiff lawyer, who said the reliefs sought were contained on the face of the documents, prayed the court to grant their prayers.
He said they were in receipt of a counter affidavit from the AGF, the 3rd defendant, and sought 14 days to respond, saying they were still within time to file their response.
Justice Lifu, however, gave Ukpai the leave or permission to address the court orally, since an accelerated hearing of the case had earler being granted.
After Ukpai’s submission, Uche equally opposed the originating summon.
He said their defence by way of a counter affidavit was filed on May 7.
He said attached to the application were two important documents listed as Exhibits A and B.
Uche said while Exhibit A is the judgement of the Federal High Court which had earlier decided the case, he said Exhibit B is the judgement of the Court of Appeal in another similar case.
“We urge your lordship to dimiss this case for being misconceived, speculative, hypothetical and grossly lacking in merit,” he said.
The lawyer submitted that the relevance of Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which came into effect in 2018, cannot have effect retroactively in 2015.
“That this does not affect the 1st defendant (Jonathan),” he said.
According to him, this suit is merely an academic exercise.
He said the constitution guarantees every Nigerian, including Jonathan, the rights to participate in political activities.
“We urge my lord to hold that this case is completely unmeritorious and that the plaintiff has no locus standi and no cause of action has crytalised,” he said.
The ex-predident’s lawyer, who urged the court to dismiss the suit with substantial cost, sought N50 million cost.
Also arguing, Lami-Shiru, said the AGF filed a six-paragraph counter affidavit dated and filed on May 18.
She prayed the court to dimiss the suit in its entirety, especially against the 3rd defendant (AGF).
Uche also moved his preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit.
He prayed the court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.
According to the lawyer, the suit is purely speculative, founded on conjecture, premature and predicated on media speculation, as there was no nomination, no election and no cause of action.
“The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain hypothetical constitutional questions.
“The suit constitutes a gross abuse of court process, aimed at obtaining a pre-emptive political judgment.
“Cosmetic joinder of 2nd and 3rd
defendants is a mere jurisdictional artifice,” he said.
He submitted that the issues raised had already been judicially settled by a subsisting judgment of the Federal High Court, Yenagoa.
The former president, therefore, sought an order striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction and as constituting a gross abuse of court process.
Lami-Shiru did not oppose the preliminary objection filed on behalf of the former president.
After the judge heard the plaintiff’s opposition to the preliminary objection, Justice Lifu adjourned the matter until May 26 for composite judgement.