Lawyers yesterday reacted to the judgement which cleared former President Goodluck Jonathan for running in the 2027 election, and another one which restrained Governor Lucky Ayedatiwa of Ondo State from contesting despite similar facts.

The Federal High Court had yesterday dismissed a suit seeking to bar Jonathan from contesting. The court premised its judgement on an existing judgement of the court of appeal that cleared Jonathan.

Reacting, an Abuja-based lawyer, Prince Igbo submitted that: “The Federal High Court judgment clearing former President Goodluck Jonathan to contest in 2027 is a significant constitutional interpretation of Section 137 of the Constitution. The court appears to have reaffirmed the principle that completing the tenure of a deceased president is not the same thing as serving a constitutionally elected term.

“In my view, the judgment aligns with earlier constitutional arguments that Jonathan’s emergence after the death of President Umaru Yar’Adua was an extraordinary national circumstance intended to preserve constitutional order and democratic stability.

“On the other hand, the restraining order against Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa demonstrates that the courts are also prepared to closely scrutinise successionrelated tenures at the state level. The judiciary seems determined to prevent constitutional ambiguities from creating opportunities for extended occupancy of office.

“Many Nigerians may see the two decisions as contradictory, but legally they are not necessarily so. Every constitutional case must be examined on the basis of its peculiar facts, the relevant constitutional provisions, and the reliefs sought before the court. “I believe both matters will eventually travel to the appellate courts because of their constitutional importance. The final interpretation by higher courts may ultimately shape political participation and eligibility debates ahead of the 2027 general elections.”

Another lawyer, Dauda Ba-Adams in own reaction stated that: “The judgment favouring Goodluck Jonathan did not come to me as a surprise because Nigerian constitutional law has long recognised the distinction between succession into office and election into office. Jonathan merely completed an unexpired tenure before later contesting a fresh election.

“The framers of the constitution could not have intended to permanently disqualify a vice president who constitutionally steps in after the death of a sitting president. Such an interpretation would amount to punishing constitutional compliance and national service. “However, the restraining order issued against Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa raises broader constitutional and democratic questions. Courts must be extremely careful whenever their decisions have the effect of limiting the democratic choices available to the electorate.

“That said if the court found that the governor’s anticipated tenure would conflict with constitutional limitations, then the judiciary has a duty to uphold the supremacy of the constitution regardless of political sentiments or public emotions.

“What these two cases have exposed is the urgent need for clearer constitutional amendments on succession, tenure calculation, and eligibility for elective office. Otherwise, Nigeria may continue to witness repeated pre-election constitutional disputes”.

For Onesimus Ruya, he submitted that: “These two judgments once again show how central the judiciary has become in Nigeria’s democratic process. Increasingly, major political contests are being shaped not only at the ballot box but also in the courtroom. “The decision clearing Jonathan for 2027 could significantly alter political calculations ahead of the next presidential election.

Whether or not he eventually contests, the ruling has already reopened national conversations about leadership, constitutional eligibility, and political realignments. “Conversely, the decision restraining Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa sends a message that incumbency does not automatically guarantee eligibility under the constitution. The courts are clearly showing willingness to interrogate tenure issues beyond mere political considerations.

“I think part of the confusion among the public stems from the assumption that both cases are identical simply because they relate to tenure. Legally, they arise from different factual circumstances and constitutional questions, which is why the outcomes may differ. “Ultimately, Nigerians must allow the judicial process to run its course peacefully.

Democracy is strengthened when political actors respect court decisions and pursue disagreements through lawful appellate channels rather than through public attacks on the judiciary.”