Goodlock Jonathan
Susan Abayomi
Former President Goodluck Jonathan and the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi SAN, asked a Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday to dismiss a motion seeking the recusal of Justice Peter Lifu from a suit challenging Jonathan’s eligibility for the 2027 presidential election. The request came during proceedings in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025, which was brought by Abuja-based lawyer Johnmary Jideobi. The plaintiff is asking the court to determine whether Jonathan is constitutionally permitted to contest again, given his previous time in office.
Jideobi’s argument rests on Sections 1 and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. He contends that Jonathan has already served beyond the constitutional limit because he was sworn in on May 6, 2010 following the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, and again on May 29, 2011 after winning the presidential election. From his view, that amounts to two terms, and any further bid would breach the constitutional restriction on presidential tenure.
In addition to the main suit, Jideobi filed a motion on notice asking Justice Lifu to withdraw from the case. The motion, deposed to by his lawyer Ndubuisi Ukpai, alleged bias on the part of the judge. The specific grievance was that the court reduced the 14-day period Jideobi had to respond to Jonathan’s counter-affidavit and preliminary objection, which he said compromised his right to a fair hearing.
Jonathan, represented by Chris Uche SAN, opposed the recusal application strongly. Uche described the motion as frivolous, baseless, and founded on gross misrepresentation of what transpired in court. He told the judge that the application amounted to an abuse of court process and urged that it be dismissed with substantial costs. He also asked the court to discountenance it and proceed with hearing the substantive matter.
The Attorney-General of the Federation aligned with Jonathan’s position. Fagbemi, represented by Maimuna Lami-Shiru, Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law at the Federal Ministry of Justice, argued that while a judge may recuse himself where impartiality is in doubt, the circumstances presented did not warrant such a step. She submitted that the motion lacked merit and was another attempt to delay proceedings, and also asked for costs against the plaintiff.
Justice Lifu listened to both sides and fixed May 26, 2026 for judgment on the substantive suit as well as a ruling on the recusal motion. The court had earlier heard arguments from all parties after they adopted their briefs of argument. INEC, the other defendant in the case, was absent and had no legal representation in court.
Jonathan’s legal team also referenced two previous judgments in support of their stance. They cited the Federal High Court decision in Andy Solomon v. Jonathan and the Court of Appeal ruling in Cyracus Njoku v. Jonathan, both of which dismissed similar challenges to his eligibility. Uche argued that those precedents should guide the court in dismissing the current suit as well, and he requested ₦50 million in costs.
The AGF’s team asked for ₦2 million in costs, maintaining that the recusal application was a distraction from the real issue before the court. They stressed that the judge had acted within his discretion in managing timelines and that shortening the reply period did not amount to bias. According to them, the motion was designed to frustrate the hearing rather than to address any real conflict of interest.
With the court now set to rule on both the eligibility question and the recusal request on the same date, the outcome will determine whether the case moves forward or is thrown out. For now, Jonathan and the AGF remain united in seeking dismissal of both the substantive suit and the motion against Justice Lifu, while Jideobi insists the court should first address the issue of judicial impartiality before proceeding further.
