Politics

Court Ruling Clears Jonathan For 2027 Presidential Bid Amid Pressure From Parties

Published

3 weeks ago

September 2, 2025

As the possibility of former President Goodluck Jonathan contesting the 2027 presidential election continues to heat up political discussions, a previously unpublished judgment delivered by a Federal High Court in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, affirmed that Jonathan was well qualified to contest presidential election.

Two members of the APC in Bayelsa had gone to court in 2022 to determine Jonathan’s position, given the high stakes northern lobby to mobilise Jonathan to replace late President Muhammadu Buhari before the now President Tinubu eventually clinched the APC ticket.

Aides to the former President said he is still consulting on whether to throw his hat in the ring for 2027.

Sources close to the former President told THISDAY last night, that he has been approached by three political parties each wanting him to contest the presidency on their platforms. The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, the New Nigeria Peoples Party, NNPP and the recently formed coalition, the African Democratic Congress, ADC all jostling for the former President who many see as one of the most viable candidates that can give the incumbent President Bola Ahmed Tinubu a good run for his money.

This calculation is based on the fact that Jonathan can only legally seek one more term and could assuage the feelings of northern voters who accuse President Tinubu of marginalisation.

A claim that the presidency has vigorously denied.

The judgment delivered by Justice Isah Dashem of the Federal High Court, Yenagoa, on May 27, 2022 but obtained by THISDAY on Monday, put to rest the contentious constitutional amendment of Section 137(1)(b) and 3, as it affects Jonathan.

Various analysts led by the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development and Learned Silk, Festus Keyamo, had claimed that the PDP may put its presidential chances in 2027 at “risk” should they field Jonathan going by the provisions of the above section from the amended Constitution in 2018. However, Keyamo did not disclose or was unaware of the judgement of Justice Dashem.

The judgment, which has not been appealed or set aside remains subsisting. And it is now out of time for any appeal after 3 years since it was delivered In the 2022 suit with number: FHC/YNG/CS/86/2022, the two APC members sued Jonathan, APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), over rumour that the APC had planned to field the former president as its presidential candidate in the 2023 general elections.

Their grouse was that Jonathan’s participation would ruin the chances of the APC having taking oath of office twice as president.

The sole issue raised for determination was “Whether, in view of the provisions of | Section 137(1)(b) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as altered) and the fact that Jonathan had earlier been sworn-in as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 2010 and 2011 respectively, whether he is qualified to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections to be organized by the 3rd Defendant.”

The plaintiffs, Andy Solomon and Idibiye Abraham, through their lawyer, Seigha Egbuwabe, further urged that if the answer to (1) above was in the negative, then the court should determine “Whether the no 2” Defendant was entitled to field the 1st Defendant as its Presidential Candidate in the 2023 General Elections.”

The court was also to determine, “Whether the 3rd Defendant is entitled to disqualify the 1st Defendant from contesting and/or from being presented as the 2nd Defendant Presidential Candidate in the 2023 General Elections.”

Dashem, after taking arguments from plaintiffs’ lawyer and Jonathan, who was represented by Eric Omare, held that Jonathan was eminently qualified to contest in 2023.

Before arriving at the conclusion, Dashem observed that Jonathan was elected first as president in 2011.

“The office into which the ‘election’ stated in Section 137(1)(b) of the Constitution applies to the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and not into the Office of the Vice President. I have perused the entirety of the Plaintiffs supporting affidavit and Written Address and I am unable to find where the Plaintiffs referred this Court contested apart from the elections conducted in year 2011.

“I, therefore, find the Plaintiffs’ contention that the 1st Defendant has been elected to the Office of President on Two (2) previous occasions spurious, baseless and unsubstantiated.

“And I so hold.”

He clarified that although elections into the offices of President and Vice President were conducted simultaneously and upon a joint ticket submitted by a political party, such as the 2nd Defendant, to the 3rd Defendant, the positions of President and Vice President were two different offices.

According to the judge, election of a person, such as the 1st Defendant, into the Office of the Vice President is not the same as his election into the Office of the President and vice-versa.

The judge stated, “A person who is elected into the Office of Vice President cannot by virtue of such election simpliciter, occupy the position of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I so hold.

“As I have noted above, the Plaintiff did not file a Reply Affidavit to dispute the facts contained in paragraphs 4(i) — (y) of the 1st Defendant’s Counter Affidavit. The legal implication of this failure is that the contentions of the 1st Defendant are deemed to be true.

“In the final analysis, I find that, the evidence before this Court points to the conclusion that the 1st Defendant has only been elected into the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on one (1) previous occasion, which said occasion was in the General Elections conducted in year 2011. And I so hold.”

On the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution, Dashem stated that Jonathan was sworn in as president in 2010, to complete the tenure of late President Umaru Yar’Adua and again in 2011, after he won the 2011 presidential election.

He agreed with Jonathan’s submissions that the said provisions, which sought to bar persons who completed another’s tenure from contesting twice, did not apply to him because the law was passed in 2018, when he already had the right to contest and contested in the 2015, general elections.

Dashem said, “As I have held above, the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution was not part of our Constitution prior to June 7, 2018, when same took effect. It, therefore, follows that the provisions of sub-section (3) was not the position of our law at all material times before June 7, 2018. It also follows that, prior to June 7, 2018, no restriction was placed on the number of times a person who was sworn-in to complete the term of office of a President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can be re-elected into that Office.

“The 1st Defendant has argued that, since he acquired his right to contest and, if successful, be sworn-in as President after he lost his re-election bid, in 2025, to the current President – President Muhammadu Buhari it would be unethical to the spirit and intendment of the legislature to take away the right he acquired in year 2015 on the basis of a law that came into effect in 2018.

“Now, the position of the law on retroactive or retrospective application of laws is quite settled. Retroactive laws are which relate or cover matters or acts which occurred before its commencement date.”

The judge added, “Despite my best efforts, I fail to see where the legislature expressed their intention, by express and unequivocal words, that the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution should be accorded retrospective application.

“In the absence of such express words, I am constrained to hold that the provisions of Section 137(3) do not enjoy retrospective application. The application and enforceability of the said subsection can only be construed to apply with effect from June 7, 2018. And I so hold.

“In my opinion, the position being propounded by the 1st Defendant is not only tenable but accords with the position of the law. It is the duty of the Plaintiffs to point or direct this Court to where the legislature stated that the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution apply to events and/or rights which have been acquired and/or have been vested in parties prior to June 7, 2018.

“The law is that, he who asserts must prove. See, Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. It therefore, behoved the Plaintiffs to provide this Court with facts to support their case. In the absence of such proof, I find that the Plaintiffs have not discharged the burden of proof placed on them by law.

“I, therefore, find merit in the argument of the 1st Defendant that the introduction of sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the Constitution does not affect his right to contest for the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections and be sworn-in as such, should he be victorious at the polls.

“As I have noted above, before, in year 2015 when the 1st Defendant lost his re-election bid into the Office of the President, the restriction imposed by subsection (3) to Section 137 was not in existence. This is why the 1st Defendant despite having been sworn-in as President on May 6, 2010 and May 29, 2011, was able to contest for the Office of the President in the 2015 General Elections.

“Had the 1st Defendant been victorious at the 2015 polls, he would have been sworn-in for a third time without any legal impediment. Therefore, the 1st Defendant acquired his right to contest for the Office of the President immediately his term as President ended on May 29, 2015. Clearly, it is incontrovertible that the Ist Defendant’s right to contest and be sworn-in as President accrued to and was vested in him on May 29, 2015. And I so hold.

“In the final analysis, I answer Question 1 formulated by the Plaintiffs in their Originating Summons in the affirmative.

“I declare that, the provisions of Section 137(3) of the Constitution acquired the force of law with effect from June 7, 2018 and same does not have retrospective application.

“I also declare that, the 1st Defendant is not disqualified by the provisions of Section 137(1)(b) and (3) of the Constitution from contesting for election into the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the 2023 General Elections.

“Having answered Question 1 in the affirmative, the necessity to answer Questions 2 and 3 have been obviated. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I answer Question 2 in the affirmative also whilst I answer Question 3 in the negative.

“In the final analysis, I answer questions 1 and 2 posed in the Originating Summons in favour of the 1st Defendant and question 3 in the negative and therefore against the 3rd Defendant.

“Consequently, I enter Judgement for the I Defendant and all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs in their Originating Summons dated May 16, 2022 (but filed on May 17, 2022) fail and are all hereby dismissed.”
Source: Arise News

Politics

Why I Refused To Challenge Emergency Rule – Fubara

Published

3 days ago

September 20, 2025

Editor

Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, has explained why he resisted the pressure from his supporters to challenge the emergency rule declared in the state by President Bola Tinubu, saying his decision was guided by a desire to secure peace, stability, and progress for the people.

Fubara stated this on Friday during a statewide broadcast after his return to the state following the expiration of the emergency rule.

The governor and his deputy, Prof. Ngozi Odu, and the Chief of Staff, Rivers State Government House, Edison Ehie, arrived at the Port Harcourt International Airport, Omagwa, two days after President Bola Tinubu lifted the state of emergency imposed on the state and ordered his reinstatement.

Their aircraft with number 5N-BTX touched down at 12:15 pm and they were received to a heroic welcome.

On the ground to receive Governor Fubara were several of his supporters, including a former Commissioner for Information and Communications, Emma Okah; former Commissioner for Health, Dr Adaeze Oreh; former Nigerian Ambassador to the Netherlands, Orji Ngofa; former Commissioner for Environment, Sydney Gbara; and former factional Speaker of the State House of Assembly, Victor Oko-Jumbo.

Others present were former Commissioner for Youths, Chisom Gbali; former Commissioner for Physical Planning and Urban Development, Evans Bipi; former President of NUPENG, Igwe Achese; former Commissioner for Education, Dr. Tamunosisi Gogo-Jaja; as well as former council chairmen of Port Harcourt City, Ezebunwo Ichemati, among others.

President Tinubu, on Wednesday, announced an end to the emergency rule, which ended the six-month tenure of ex-naval chief, Vice-Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retd.), as Rivers State sole administrator.

Rivers State has faced one of Nigeria’s fiercest political crises, pitting Fubara against his predecessor and FCT minister, Nyesom Wike.

Once allies, their fallout over control of state structures and resources split the House of Assembly, sparking impeachment moves, protests, and violence, including the burning of the Assembly complex.

President Tinubu intervened with a peace deal, which failed to calm frayed nerves, before the declaration of emergency rule.

In a statement on the cessation of the emergency rule on Wednesday, made available by the Presidency, the President said, “The Governor, His Excellency Siminalayi Fubara, the Deputy Governor, Her Excellency Ngozi Odu, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and the speaker, Martins Amaewhule, will resume work in their offices from September 18, 2025.

“It, therefore, gives me great pleasure to declare that the emergency in Rivers State of Nigeria shall end with effect from midnight today (Wednesday).”

Fubara was expected to resume on Thursday as many of his supporters thronged the gate of the Government House along Azikiwe Street, Port Harcourt, as early as 6am on Thursday, but the governor failed to resume.

On Thursday, at its first plenary after six months, the state House of Assembly called on the governor to immediately forward the list of commissioner-nominees to it for screening and confirmation.

The plenary was presided over by Speaker Martin Amaewhule at the Conference Hall of the Legislative Quarters in Port Harcourt on Thursday.

The Assembly also called on the governor to submit the Rivers State Appropriation Bill, while noting that members would review how funds were spent during the six months of emergency rule.

In a statement issued by the Special Assistant on Media to the Speaker, Martins Wachukwu, the Assembly gave details of the resolution.

The statement read, “Returning from a six-month emergency rule induced by the political impasse in the state in the recent past, the Rivers State House of Assembly, on Thursday, at its first legislative sitting, through a motion, set the legislative agenda for the remaining part of the third season of the 10th Assembly.”

The statement indicated that the House Leader, Major Jack, on behalf of eight co-sponsors, in a motion, averred that the House considered it imperative to set the agenda to reflect current realities, while House members, in their contributions to the debate on the motion, applauded the motion and expressed support for all the prayers therein.

Addressing the state, Fubara described the emergency rule period as “enormously challenging” but said he willingly abided by the declaration to allow room for peace to be restored.

“As your governor, I accepted to abide by the state of emergency declaration and chose to cooperate with Mr President and the National Assembly, guided by my conviction that the sacrifice was not too great to secure peace, stability, and progress of Rivers State.

“This was why I also resisted the pressure to challenge the constitutionality of the declaration of the state of emergency, the suspension of democratic institutions and all other actions that we endured during the difficult period,” he said.

The governor commended President Tinubu for brokering a peace deal between all parties involved in the crisis, noting that the intervention helped reconcile him, Federal Capital Territory Minister, Nyesom Wike, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

“Our leader, Nyesom Wike, all members of Rivers State House of Assembly, and I as your governor have all accepted to bury the hatchet and embrace peace and reconciliation in the best interest of our dear state,” Fubara said.

Expressing gratitude to Tinubu, the governor reaffirmed his loyalty to the president, promising never to take his intervention for granted. He also appealed to residents who remain sceptical about the peace process.

“To those who have expressed genuine fear, frustration and uncertainty over the nature of the peace process, I assure you that your concerns are valid and understood.

“However, nothing has been irretrievably lost. There remain ample opportunities for necessary adjustments, continued reconciliation, and inclusiveness,” Fubara assured.

Fubara, however, charged political leaders, stakeholders, and institutions in the state to ensure that the peace achieved endures.

Fubara noted that with peace restored, his administration’s focus would now return fully to governance and service delivery.

‘Bond with Rivers continues’

Speaking shortly after he arrived at the Government House, Port Harcourt, the governor assured the people of the state that his government would continue to work in their best interest.

He expressed his gratitude to the people and residents of the state for the warm reception he received earlier at the Port Harcourt International Airport, Omagwa in IKwerre local government area of the state.

However, no prominent politician loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike or any of his known supporters were present at the airport to welcome the governor.

Meanwhile, at the Government House, Port Harcourt, thousands were already jubilating when the news of the governor’s arrival at the airport became public knowledge.

The celebration changed into singing and dancing as musical bands supplied appropriate tunes to sustain the tempo as the governor’s convoy drove into the abode where he had been absent for the last six months.

Right inside the Government House, the atmosphere was also electric as workers also celebrated the governor’s return.

Fubara immediately inspected some offices and facilities in the seat of power before answering questions from the Government House press crew, where he expressed happiness with the show of love by the people and residents of the state.
(PUNCH)

Politics

Nigeria Sliding Into One-party State – Catholic Bishops Warn

Published

3 days ago

September 20, 2025

Editor

Catholic Bishops in Nigeria have raised the alarm over what they described as the suppression of opposition voices, warning that Nigeria is gradually sliding into a one-party state.

The bishops expressed this concern in a communiqué issued at the end of the plenary meeting of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria held in Akwa Ibom State, which ended on Friday.

The communiqué was signed by the Archbishop of Owerri and President, CBCN, Lucius Ugorji; and Bishop of Uromi and Secretary, CBCN, Donatus Ogun.

The bishops cautioned politicians against pushing the nation towards a one-party state which they argued is unhealthy for democracy.

The bishops expressed dismay at the growing preoccupation of politicians with securing and retaining power ahead of the 2027 general elections, rather than delivering good governance.

They noted that this obsession with political dominance had fuelled corruption, inefficiency, and the neglect of citizens’ welfare.

The bishops further criticised political defections, alignments and realignments, describing them as self-serving moves by politicians with little intention to serve the people.

The communiqué read, “In the face of many live threats, politicians are more preoccupied with securing and retaining power and less concerned with good governance for the common good of the electorate.

“Abandoning their duties, they seem more concerned with the pursuit of their personal political agenda and perfecting strategies to grasp power in 2027.

“In fact, there seems to be suppression of opposition as Nigeria appears to be tilting to a one-party state, the development of which is not a good omen for democracy.

“We observe that many politicians are merely strategising, aligning and realigning, defecting from one party to another; and posturing for future political offices with little or no intention to contribute to the common good and make better the lives of the citizens.”

Ahead of the 2027 elections, the bishops demanded electoral reforms that should not only ensure electronic transmission of results from the polling units, but also their electronic collation in real time.

They also urged the judiciary to remain impartial in electoral matters, stressing that judicial credibility was vital to national stability.

Politics

Edo PDP Urges Police To Steer Clear From LG By-election

Published

3 days ago

September 19, 2025

Editor

The Edo State chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party on Friday called on the state police command
not to lend any form of support, deployment, cover, or legitimacy to Saturday’s bye election.

On Tuesday, an Edo State High Court sitting in Benin restrained the Edo State Independent Electoral Commission and the state government from going ahead with planned local government by-elections across 59 wards in the state.

In the court papers made available to journalists on Thursday in Benin, the Edo State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice was also a party to the suit.

Justice Mary Itsueli, sitting as a vacation judge, granted the order on Tuesday following an ex-parte motion brought by the Peoples Democratic Party.

The PDP, through its counsels, Oluwole Osaze Uzzi, Michael Ekwemuka and P. W. Akwuen, in the suit, B/247M/2025, had prayed the court for leave to apply for judicial review of EDSIEC’s decision to conduct by-elections to fill councillorship positions in the affected wards.

The party argued that the councillors’ tenures remain valid until September 2026, making any attempt to declare their seats vacant unlawful.

Justice Itsueli, who held that the applicants had shown sufficient grounds for the court to intervene, also referred the matter to the Chief Judge of Edo State for reassignment to a regular court, fixing September 30, 2025, for the return date.

In a letter by the PDP chairman, Tony Aziegbemi to the state Commissioner of Police, Monday Agbonika on Friday , he described the election as an illegal exercise.

The statement reads, “I write on behalf of the Peoples Democratic Party, Edo State Chapter, to bring to your attention and emphasize the subsisting order of the High Court of Edo State restraining the Edo State Independent Electoral Commission and the Edo State Government from conducting any purported Local Government by-elections in 59 wards across the state.

“On Tuesday, September 16, 2025, Justice Mary E. Itsueli, sitting as a vacation judge of the Edo State High Court, granted an order in Suit No. B/247M/2025, restraining EDSIEC and the State Government from going ahead with the planned by-elections.

“The Honourable Court further held that the tenures of the duly elected councilors in the affected wards subsist until September 2026, and therefore, any attempt to declare their seats vacant or to conduct fresh elections would be unlawful and unconstitutional.

“The Court categorically ordered that the Respondents “are to stay further actions and are restrained from conducting the election or taking any further steps in connection with the planned Local Government by-election across 59 wards in the Local Government Areas of Edo State, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive matter.”

“The substantive matter has since been referred to the Honourable Chief Judge for assignment to a regular court, with a return date fixed for September 30, 2025.

“In the light of the foregoing, we respectfully call on your esteemed office to refrain from lending any form of support, deployment, cover, or legitimacy to this illegal exercise. Any participation by security agencies in the purported elections would amount to aiding and abetting contempt of court and undermining the rule of law.

“We trust that, as neutral institutions of state committed to upholding law and order, you will ensure that your men and officers do not participate in or provide security for this unlawful process. The integrity of our democracy, the sanctity of judicial pronouncements, and the credibility of security institutions must be preserved.

“Copies of the court order are attached here in,” he added.