A Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday imposed a N1 million fine on a plaintiff seeking to stop former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election, after the court faulted repeated delays and poor prosecution of the case.
Justice Peter Lifu, who presided over the matter, described the conduct of the plaintiff, Johnmary Jideobi, and his counsel, Ndubuisi Ukpai, as unacceptable and inconsistent with the urgency expected in politically sensitive cases.
The judge ruled that the suit, filed since October 2025, had suffered avoidable setbacks because the plaintiff failed to properly serve key parties and repeatedly stalled proceedings. He subsequently awarded N1 million in costs against Jideobi in favour of Jonathan.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Lifu stressed that matters with political implications required accelerated hearing in line with judicial policy and electoral timelines.
“As this court has earlier ruled and ordered, this case has a character of politics,” the judge said.
“I have taken judicial notice of the Independent National Electoral Commission timetable.”
The court noted that despite filing the case several months ago, the plaintiff had yet to serve the originating summons on some defendants, including the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Independent National Electoral Commission.
Justice Lifu said the situation amounted to tardiness and abuse of judicial process.
“Today, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff did not serve the originating summons to the second and third defendants since October 6, 2025,” he ruled.
“This case is for hearing today and the hearing has been frustrated or aborted due to the tardiness of the plaintiff who is a lawyer by training and calling.”
The ruling followed arguments by Jonathan’s counsel, Uche, who urged the court to dismiss the suit outright, accusing the plaintiff and his lawyer of showing “absolute disdain and disrespect” to the court.
According to him, neither the plaintiff nor his counsel was initially present when the matter was called, despite evidence that hearing notices had been duly served on all parties.
“The plaintiff thinks he can hold the court and other parties to ransom and stay back in the comfort of his house and drag all of us to court,” Jonathan’s lawyer argued.
“There must be a consequence for every action. They think the courts are toothless bulldogs and the dignity of the court must be protected.”
Counsel representing the Attorney-General of the Federation, J.D. Esho, also informed the court that her office had not been served with the plaintiff’s originating processes, despite receiving Jonathan’s response to the suit.
The court registrar equally confirmed that while INEC had received a hearing notice, the commission was yet to be served with the substantive originating summons.
Ukpai later arrived in court midway into proceedings and apologised for his lateness, blaming it on a vehicle breakdown.
“My lord, I am sorry. I am for the plaintiff. Our vehicle broke down on the way,” he told the court.
The substantive suit seeks an order restraining Jonathan from presenting himself as a candidate in the 2027 presidential election and preventing INEC from accepting or publishing his name if he eventually contests.
Jideobi is asking the court to interpret provisions of Sections 1 and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution to determine whether Jonathan remains constitutionally eligible to seek another term as president.
The legal argument surrounding Jonathan’s eligibility has resurfaced repeatedly since he left office in 2015. The controversy stems from constitutional debates over whether the former president’s completion of the tenure of late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua counts as a full presidential term under the law.
Jonathan, who served as president from 2010 to 2015 after first assuming office as acting president in 2010 following Yar’Adua’s illness and death, has not publicly declared interest in the 2027 race.
Political observers, however, say recurring litigation around his eligibility reflects growing speculation over possible realignments ahead of the next presidential election cycle.
The matter was adjourned for continuation of proceedings, with attention now focused on whether the plaintiff will regularise service on all parties before the next hearing date.
