Senior lawyers across the country are sharply divided over the eligibility of former President Goodluck Jonathan and Ondo State Governor, Lucky Aiyedatiwa, to contest in future elections.
While some argued that Jonathan remains constitutionally barred from seeking the presidency again, others insist that the amendment to the constitution that introduced a new disqualification clause cannot be applied retroactively.
Similarly, legal opinions are split on whether Governor Aiyedatiwa, who succeeded the late Governor Rotimi Akeredolu before winning the 2024 governorship poll, can lawfully seek another term in office.
While a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and rights activist, Dr Monday Ubani, argued that Jonathan is not under any constitutional disability to contest the 2027 presidential election if he so desires, another rights activist and lawyer, Kabir Akingbolu, opined that it is unlawful for the former president to contest again.
However, another lawyer, Onesimus Ruya, has a different view. He cited Section 182(3), which bars a successor who has completed a predecessor’s tenure from being elected for more than one term.
SAN, rights activists differ on Jonathan’s eligibility
Dr Ubani said further in his comments that what happened in 2010 when Jonathan was sworn in upon the demise of Umaru Yar’adua was a constitutional act of succession under Section 146(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, which provides that the Vice President shall step into the office of the President in the event of death, resignation, or removal of the latter.
He said: “The controversy stems from Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended by the Fourth Alteration, 2018), which provides that: “A person who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as President shall not be elected to the office of President more than once”. .
“The intention behind this provision was to prevent a Vice President (or Deputy Governor at the state level) who completes the tenure of a deceased or removed principal from enjoying the possibility of two further full terms.
“Former President Jonathan became President in 2010 following the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. He completed Yar’Adua’s tenure and subsequently contested and won the 2011 presidential election, serving a full term (2011–2015). He contested again in 2015 and lost. Thus, in terms of actual elections, Jonathan has only been elected once, in 2011.
“The question of his eligibility has been judicially addressed. In Andy Solomon & Idibiye Abraham v. Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan & Ors (Suit No. FHC/YNG/CS/86/2022, delivered on 27th May, 2022 by Justice Isa Hamma Dashen, Federal High Court, Yenagoa), the court held that Section 137(3) could not be applied retroactively to disqualify Jonathan.
“The 2018 amendment came into force long after he ceased to hold office, and retrospective interpretation is impermissible unless expressly provided. Since the amendment does not state a retroactive effect, Jonathan remains eligible.
“Even earlier, in Cyriacus Njoku v. Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan (2015, FCT High Court), the court held that Jonathan was eligible to run.
“Some colleagues argued that the Constitution envisages a maximum of eight years for any individual to serve as President, and that allowing Jonathan to contest again could see him serve a cumulative nine years, which would contradict the supposed intention of the framers of the Constitution.
“My simple answer to that puzzle is that what transpired in 2010 was not a “term” recognised by the election. It was a constitutional act of succession under Section 146(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, which provides that the Vice President shall step into the office of the President in the event of death, resignation, or removal of the latter. Nature abhors a vacuum, and Jonathan’s assumption of office in 2010 was by operation of law, not by electoral mandate.
“Therefore, that succession period cannot properly be counted as part of his elected tenure when computing his years in office. In reality, Jonathan has only served one elected term (2011–2015).
“The Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently affirmed the presumption against retrospective application of statutes. Cases such as Nwobodo v. Onoh, Afolabi v. Governor of Oyo State, and Uwaifo v. Attorney-General of Bendel State are authorities for the proposition that laws are presumed to operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. This principle is anchored on fairness, certainty of law, and the protection of vested rights.
“It follows that Section 137(3) cannot be used retroactively to disqualify former President Jonathan. He has only been elected once (2011-2015), and the constitutional limit remains “not more than two elections.
“Therefore, it is my considered opinion that Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan is not under any constitutional disability to contest the 2027 presidential election if he so desires. Whether he chooses to do so, and whether Nigerians deem him fit for another chance, are entirely political questions. The law, however, is clear, former President Jonathan is eligible”.
However, in his contrary views, Akingbolu maintained that the 2018 constitutional review had foreclosed any possibility of any contest by Jonathan in 2027.
“It is not possible for former President Goodluck Jonathan to contest again under our law. Even though the law was made after he took over from Yar’adua, the law will still apply to him. This is because the law was put in place to ensure that no one spends more than eight years in power.
“If he wins another election and he is sworn in, it means he would be spending close to ten years in office in violation of the law. We should also not forget that he has already taken the oath of office twice. The Supreme Court had also declared in a case that the oath of office is only permitted twice.
“So, given those positions, I don’t think Jonathan is qualified to contest again in 2027. Besides, I think Jonathan is an elder statesman, and I will advise that he maintain that status. This is better and more beneficial to him. He should not allow people to push him into doing what is not right”, Akingbolu said.
Nelson Adewale, also a lawyer, in his own reaction, said that Jonathan remains free to contest.
“Our constitution frowns against retroactive application of laws. To now turn around and apply the 2018 amendment backwards is judicial injustice,” he said.
The debate over Jonathan’s eligibility is similar to the controversy in Ondo State, where Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa’s political future has become a subject of legal and political tussle.
Following the death of Governor Rotimi Akeredolu in 2023, Aiyedatiwa completed his principal’s term before contesting and winning the 2024 governorship election. The question now is whether he can constitutionally seek another four-year term when his current mandate expires.
Adewale further submitted that Aiyedatiwa remains eligible.
“Section 182(1)(b) of the Constitution allows a person to serve two elective terms as governor. Governor Aiyedatiwa has so far served only one elected term, since completing Akeredolu’s tenure did not count as an election. He can therefore seek re-election once more.
“The Electoral Act cannot override the Constitution. We must not confuse politics with law. The supreme law is the constitution, and by that, Aiyedatiwa still has one more shot,” he said.
But Onesimus Ruya added in his comments, “The framers of the law were clear: the spirit is to prevent elongated tenure through succession. Governor Aiyedatiwa has already benefited once, and constitutionally, he cannot go beyond 2028.
“The judiciary may eventually have to settle the matter. Unless the Supreme Court speaks with finality, this controversy will keep recurring. There is a broader challenge in Nigeria’s democratic process, where constitutional ambiguities are often exploited for political gain.
“Without clear judicial interpretation, we risk endless disputes and instability before every major election. For now, the two issues remain unresolved, with lawyers standing firmly on opposite sides.
“But one certainty is that the questions of Jonathan’s and Aiyedatiwa’s eligibility will likely end up before the courts, setting the stage for landmark judicial interpretations ahead of the 2027 general elections.”
