Politics

June 12: Jonathan, Others Mount Pressure On Tinubu To Reinstate Fubara

Published

3 months ago

June 8, 2025

Former President Goodluck Jonathan is among eminent Nigerians said to be making a case for suspended Governor Sim Fubara of Rivers State, behind the scenes, to be returned to his position on or before June 12.

Jonathan, according to sources, has engaged President Bola Tinubu in at least one telephone conversation on the need to reinstate the suspended governor on or before June 12 in the spirit of Democracy Day.

The president will, according to tradition, address the nation in a broadcast on June 12.

Tinubu had, on March 18, suspended Fubara from office for six months, but many people described the action as unconstitutional as, according to them, there is no part of the Constitution which empowers the president to suspend/remove an elected governor in the event that emergency rule imposition becomes inevitable in any part of the country.

The critics cite Section 305, which provides for emergency rule without the suspension/removal of an elected governor.

They also refer to Section 188, which vests the removal of elected officials solely on the state House of Assembly.
Nevertheless, Tinubu slammed six months suspension on Fubara while also applying the same punishment on his deputy and members of the state House of Assembly, most of whom were loyal to Fubara’s predecessor, Nyesom Wike, incumbent Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), and who (lawmakers) had commenced the impeachment process against Fubara.

The suspension was the climax of the fight between Fubara and Wike over the control of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Rivers State and appointments into key positions in government.

It had been speculated that Tinubu could lift the suspension on May 29 when the nation celebrated the second anniversary of his administration, but, as that did not happen, many people are banking on June 12 reinstatement.

Four days from today, June 12 precisely, Nigeria will celebrate another Democracy Day, marking 26 years of uninterrupted democratic governance since 1999.

Every June 12, since the 1993 presidential election won by the late Chief MKO Abiola, Nigerians reminisce on the president who was never sworn-in, his wife, Kudirat, General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, and Pa Alfred Rewane, among others, who also sacrificed their lives for the democracy the nation enjoys today.

President Bola Tinubu, also a participant in the struggle, is today a beneficiary of social equality that Chief Anthony Enahoro, Chief Abraham Adesanya, Commodore Dan Suleiman, Chief Arthur Nwankwo, Chief Chukwuemeka Ezeife, Admiral Ndubuisi Kanu, Chief Frank Kokori, Chief Bola Ige, and Chief Adekunle Ajasin, who have departed this life, fought for. Among others were Chief Edwin Clark, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, Chief Ganiyu Dawodu, Chief Ayo Fasanmi, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Chief Olabiyi Durojaiye, Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, and Chima Ubani, who have also transmuted to the upper realm.

In his national broadcast on June 12 last year, when Nigeria celebrated its 25th anniversary of unbroken democracy, Tinubu noted, “No matter how democracy may be, it is the best form of governance in the long run.”

He added, “We must also be aware that there are those among us who will try to exploit current challenges to undermine, if not destroy, this democracy for which so much has already been given.

“As president of this nation, I am morally and constitutionally bound to preserve this precious form of governance. I vow to do my utmost best to protect your rights, freedoms, and liberties as citizens of Nigeria.”

It is on his above vow that he is morally and constitutionally bound to preserve democracy that Nigerians, among many other things, wait for his newfangled position on the infringement of democratic governance in Rivers State since March 18.

Parenthetically, he, as a democratically elected president, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State for six months on March 18, suspending the duly elected governor, Siminalayi Fubara, and replacing him with a sole administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok-Etteh Ibas (retd.).

By the act, later stamped by the National Assembly, Rivers State has been governed by an unelected “governor” contrary to the laws.

By September 18, it will be six months since Ibas took over Rivers State by fiat of Tinubu.

As the president leads the country to mark another June 12 anniversary on Thursday, it will be three months next Wednesday, June 18, that Ibas took over as sole administrator of Rivers State, with Fubara, the elected governor, outside the Government House, Port Harcourt.

Will Tinubu end the state of emergency he imposed on Rivers State six days before its complete three months on June 18?

Or will the travesty that he and others fought against continue under his watch?

Only the president knows his unpretentious plan for Rivers State. While there are indications that Fubara is likely to return to his position, it is difficult to predict when this will happen.

New realization
Unlike the days before his suspension, he is now playing the same game with Tinubu.

He has come to understand why his colleague in Delta State, Governor Sheriff Oborevwori, left the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and why his Akwa Ibom State counterpart, Governor Umo Eno, has also abandoned the PDP for the APC.

Unmistakably, the politics of Rivers State in recent times has transformed into a pragmatic chessboard game, giving vent to various conjectures by keen observers.

Before May 29, the second anniversary of the present elected government officials, many had thought Fubara would be reinstated to his position as governor.

But with May 29 gone, optimists say Tinubu may reinstate the governor on Democracy Day, June 12, ahead of June 18, when it will be a full three months of emergency rule in the state.

London consultation
As a man desperate for a lasting peace and true reconciliation in the face of daunting fiery darts unleashed on him by political opponents, Fubara shocked everyone when he made a trip to the United Kingdom via Germany to meet with Tinubu, who was in London in April.

The private meeting, which lasted more than three hours, centered on restoring peace in Rivers State, the possible return of Fubara, and the entire gamut of the suspended democratic institutions.

Sources confided that the London parley offered the president a first-hand opportunity to observe the chemistry of the suspended governor at close range.

Follow-up session in Lagos
Nigerians were again awed when Fubara met with Tinubu in Lagos State last Tuesday.
The picture of Tinubu and Fubara that hit the media space showed men posed in a manner signifying that something positive may be in the offing.

The Lagos meeting gave credence to Fubara’s earnest appeal-cum-warning to his supporters six days before the Lagos meeting with Tinubu to “thank Mr. President for his timely intervention to salvage the situation…”

The embattled governor also warned his loyalists not to cast aspersions on the president and Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, as doing so could jeopardize the ongoing peace process.
One major reason Fubara embarked on the peace voyage to Bourdillion was, it was learnt, to reassure Tinubu of his commitment to work with him.

There were speculations that Fubara may want to take his pound of flesh from Wike by aligning with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar for the 2027 presidential race.

More so, with the former governor of Rivers State, Rotimi Amaechi, being touted to lead the pack of the new coalition opposition parties, the fear of losing Fubara was feverish, as Amaechi and Fubara are purportedly secret allies.

To show his level of commitment, Fubara had ordered an immediate end to all forms of protests in Rivers.

He encouraged everyone who sympathised with him to follow his example of leadership by remaining calm during the crisis.

Wike in limbo?
Wike, according to several sources, was not aware of Tinubu and Fubara’s meeting at his private home on Bourdillion Street, Ikoyi, Lagos State. “The governor requested the unexpected visit,” one of the sources told Vanguard.

Wiked has revealed in a recent media chat that he hadn’t seen the suspended governor since Fubara visited him at his home in Abuja with two prominent South-West politicians.

He had always been adamant that the only way he ever wanted to vent his resentment of his political godson was to have Fubara removed from office. The minister expressed his displeasure with the state of emergency declaration, claiming it gave the struggling governor a haven.

However, the minister has consistently maintained that the governor must act sincerely if he genuinely wishes to bring about peace in Rivers State.

“How can I fight my son?” he asked, reaffirming that Fubara is his son. He claimed to be furious because Fubara volunteered to fight him as a willing tool for political rivals (Wike).

The alleged political adversaries include a former governor, Celestine Omehia; former lawmakers Austin Opara and Lee Maeba; former Transportation Minister, Dr. Abiye Sekibo; and former PDP National Chairman, Prince Uche Secondus.

Recall requirements
A reliable source suggested that Tinubu is facing a two-pronged strategy to solidify his power in Rivers, illustrating how the adage “there is no peace without a price” is being applied to politics in the state.

First, if Fubara is a sitting governor, the president can work with him to win a second term in the 2027 presidential election.

The president will have a falling out with his super FCT Minister if this is done.

In a media chat last Monday, Wike had declared that he would personally spearhead Tinubu’s 2027 campaign in Rivers.

In the eyes of many Nigerians, the hypothesis is preemptive.

The source claimed that Fubara switching from the PDP to the APC is the second possibility.

In either case, every rational observer is left vulnerable to Frederic Forsyth’s timeless work, “The Devil’s Alternative.”

As a political move, the president has personally presented the state’s N1.4 trillion budget to the National Assembly, protecting the governor from potential impeachment by Wike’s hated lawmakers in the House of Assembly should they be recalled.

As a result, one of the primary causes of the crisis has been deliberately removed.

Stakeholders hopeful
Prof. Benjamin Okaba, the National President of the Ijaw National Congress (INC), the umbrella group of the Ijaw nation, told Sunday Vanguard, “All the hypotheses have now been tested, and they are in favor of Fubara.”

Okaba believes that Tinubu has no reason to delay the reinstatement of Fubara as governor.

“Mr. President is a democrat. He was a governor. He, now, knows that the Rivers people love their governor. He also knows that terrible lies were told about the governor to make people despise him and get him out of office through impeachment”, he said.

“The president knows that the suspension is an aberration. He should waste no further time in reversing that decision and returning the governor to power. Posterity is a good judge, and the president will want history to be soft on him.”

Okaba stated categorically that there was nothing wrong with Fubara joining the APC, the president’s party, in a television program, recently.

He is one of the Ijaw leaders who have stood unfalteringly with Fubara in his travails to date.

For him to suggest that the governor could abandon the platform that brought him to power, the PDP, speaks of the subterranean intrigues at play.

“There is nothing wrong with that,” he said while responding to Fubara’s latest meeting with Tinubu in Lagos.

His words, “At this point, we must be realistic, and we must have an understanding of Nigerian politics. We operate a ‘malutocracy.’ We don’t have political parties anymore, but platforms for political associations.

“What we have are just platforms put together for people to transmit or oscillate from one place to another.

“We have state governors and former vice presidential candidates of parties just moving on, to the extent that one of the governors said, ‘If you don’t move with me, I will sack you.’

Opunabo Inkor-Tariah, a former special adviser on media to then-governor Wike, was also hopeful that Fubara’s two private visits to the president were starting to pay off.

“The governor is a reserved individual. He doesn’t talk as much as some politicians do. He has urged his followers to express gratitude to the president and refrain from disparaging the minister”, he said.

“In just two years, Fubara has completed fifty-two projects. No one has ever given him a loan. Before his suspension, he left billions of naira in the coffers. That demonstrates a wise man who is prepared to lift his people out of poverty.

“Tinubu, the president, does not reside in space. He is now aware of the sincerity and truth of a calm man.

“I don’t see anything wrong with bringing the governor back, whether the president reinstates him on June 12 or not. Everything is up in the air; let the president make a decision now since he has learned that the state’s enemies made up these lies to hang the governor”.

Former presidents mount pressure
External forces have, it was learnt, exerted pressure on Tinubu behind the scenes beyond the major gladiators in the crisis.

Among them, according to a source, is former President Goodluck Jonathan, who allegedly engaged in a long telephone conversation with the president.

“That is besides the concern expressed by two other former presidents,” the source revealed.

According to him, the two visits by Fubara came as a result of secret instructions by these forces, and “by the president’s body language, the governor may be returned sooner than the six months earlier announced by the president.”
(VANGUARD)

Related Topics:#Tinubu Fubara Rivers Rivers Crisis Wike

Up Next

Edo Senator, Neda Imasuen Defects To APC, Says LP In Shreds, No Direction

Don't Miss

Akwa Ibom Commissioner Resigns After Gov’s Defection To APC

Comments

Politics

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

Published

9 hours ago

September 2, 2025

Editor

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

El-Rufai Hits Back At ONSA, Kaduna, Insists Agencies Paying Bandits

Published

1 day ago

September 1, 2025

Editor

Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, on Monday rebutted the statements from the Office of the National Security Adviser and Kaduna State Government that accused him of politicising national security.

He maintained his previous accusation that the agencies turn security into a political tool and are complicit in payments to bandits.

In a lengthy response posted on his social media accounts, El-Rufai said the ONSA and Kaduna government were deflecting from the “core issues” he raised in a Channels Television interview.

He levelled fresh allegations that state actors have been involved in “greasing the palms” of non-state armed groups in Kaduna and neighbouring states.

The statement read, “As usual, the combined voices of the Government of Kaduna State (KDSG) and ONSA, instead of responding to the core issues I raised, seek to deflect responsibility by alleging that exposing them amounts to politicising security.

“As a person whose three siblings served in the Nigerian Army and the Air Force, with one of them rising to the rank of general, I will also continue to appreciate the immense work that continues to be done by gallant officers of the military and security agencies.

“It is a well-known fact to discerning Nigerians that the face of the politicisation of national security for politically intended purposes resides, for the first time in our recent history, in the ONSA under its present leadership.

“If the ONSA thinks Nigerians are not following its unclear and incompetent management of terrorism and banditry in Northern Nigeria and beyond, in collaboration with a certain senator, also from the North, then it is high time it carried out an in-depth evaluation and review of its actions.”

El-Rufai asked a string of pointed questions, urging authorities to explain what he described as the mechanics of alleged payments to bandits: who delivers the money, how much is handed over, and whether middlemen skim funds before delivery.

He also challenged officials to account for recent purchases of prime real estate in Abuja, which he suggested could be linked to illicit flows.

“This charade by ONSA is being done gleefully at a steep cost to the finances of the country and the ethical fabric of our society.

“The constitutional, legal and patriotic duty the government owes to security is to better support our military and security agencies with more resources like personnel, equipment and technology, rather than further endangering the country by mollycoddling bandits.

“What exactly constitutes ‘negotiations with bandits’? Why is non-kinetic approach to addressing banditry and criminality equal to withdrawals of huge amounts of money from state treasuries and handing them over to bandits and terrorists?

“Which officials and their intermediaries deliver this money, and how much personal withholding tax do they apply before delivery of the funds? Who are the most prolific purchasers of prime real estate in Abuja in the last two years, and what is the source of their newfound wealth?

“These are questions many discerning citizens are demanding answers to, while officials of ONSA and KDSG are focusing on protocol, propaganda and international junkets!”

El-Rufai further questioned the effectiveness of recent negotiations with bandits, saying attacks resumed after talks.

“After the much-publicised negotiations with bandits in Birnin Gwari… did the bandits not kill five citizens in the same Birnin Gwari LGA last month?” he asked, also listing other local government areas where kidnappings and killings allegedly continued.

He criticised what he described as ONSA’s public displays, including the parade of “rescued victims” and the attendance of senior security officers at political events in Kaduna, as examples of politicised security messaging.

The former governor, who led Kaduna for eight years, reiterated his respect for the military and security agencies and recalled working with numerous service chiefs during his tenure.

“Our appreciation for the sacrifices made by our military and security officers is deep. That is why we speak out about those saddled with immense responsibility two years ago who seem to view security management as a persistent exercise in propaganda,” he continued.

El-Rufai also accused the Kaduna State Government of sponsoring or enabling violence against political opponents, pointing to last weekend’s disruption of an African Democratic Congress meeting in Kaduna as evidence.

He concluded by urging ONSA and Kaduna authorities to focus on solving insecurity rather than “muzzling” dissent.

Politics

2027: Jonathan’s Cousin Tackles Keyamo Over Ex-president Not Qualified Comment

Published

1 day ago

September 1, 2025

Editor

A cousin of former President Goodluck Jonathan, Robert Azibaola, has criticised the Aviation Minister Festus Keyamo and human-rights scholar Prof. Chidi Odinkalu for opposing the speculation that Jonathan may run in the 2027 presidential poll.

Robert said this in a statement posted on his verified Facebook page on Monday.

Keyamo had warned the Peoples Democratic Party against handing its ticket to Jonathan, arguing that his return bid would face legal obstacles since he had already been sworn in twice as president.

However, Robert said Jonathan did not welcome “unsolicited legal advice” and insisted the former president is “100% constitutionally and legally qualified to contest, if he chooses to.”

The statement read, “Dear Festus Keyamo (SAN), Chidi Odinkalu (Prof), I greet both of you. For the record, three of us are lawyers. We were all pro-democracy activists in the ’90s, and I was a better activist than both of you combined.

“Rule No. 1: Do not offer legal advice where none is solicited. GEJ (PDP) has numerous, more cerebral, more experienced SANs at his disposal who give him sound, unblemished professional legal advice.

“Please note: GEJ is 100% constitutionally and legally qualified to contest, if he chooses to. If he decides not to yield to the overwhelming calls to run, it will not be because he is unqualified.

“Your unsolicited legal view is not of any concern to him and will never be. Don’t waste your precious time dwelling on this. Or should I schedule a meeting so you can be properly educated on the subsisting court judgments on the matter—one of which your party, APC, was a party to?”

Robert added, “This is not a confirmation that GEJ is running, though.”

While Jonathan has not formally declared a 2027 presidential run, his rumoured return has already fuelled debate in political circles.