As political discussions intensify ahead of the 2027 general elections, questions surrounding the constitutional eligibility of former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to contest for the office of President have taken centre stage.
Goodluck Jonathan assumed office as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on May 6, 2010, following the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, and was sworn in to complete the unexpired term. He was subsequently elected in his own right in the 2011 presidential election and sworn in for a full four-year term on May 29, 2011, serving until May 29, 2015.
The key provision at the heart of the debate is Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), introduced by the Fourth Alteration Act No. 16 of 2018. It states: “A person who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as President shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.”
Proponents of the view that Jonathan is ineligible argue that he was sworn in twice first in 2010 to complete Yar’Adua’s term and again in 2011 after winning the election. According to this interpretation, allowing him to contest and potentially win in 2027 would result in him serving more than the constitutional maximum of eight years (two terms of four years each) in the office of President.
Former President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Isa Ayo Salami, has publicly opined that Jonathan cannot be the nation’s President beyond the constitutional limit of eight years. He warned that any victory by Jonathan in 2027 would likely be challenged and nullified by the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court, as it would exceed the maximum tenure prescribed by the Constitution.
Legal experts citing this provision maintain that the amendment was designed to close loopholes around tenure elongation and succession, treating the completion of another person’s elected term as counting toward the overall limit, with the successor limited to only one additional elected term.
However, the issue remains contested. Some legal practitioners and political analysts argue that the 2018 amendment should not apply retroactively to Jonathan’s 2010 succession, which occurred under the unamended Constitution. They point out that Jonathan was only elected once (in 2011) and that a Federal High Court in Yenagoa had previously ruled in a related matter affirming aspects of his eligibility in the context of prior contests.
Supporters of his potential candidacy assert that he effectively served only one elected term and that the doctrine of necessity applied in 2010 does not equate to a full elected term for the purpose of the two-term limit.
Suits have already been filed in Federal High Court seeking to restrain Jonathan from contesting, while others describe such actions as premature or an abuse of court process. Ultimately, any definitive resolution would likely rest with the appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, should Jonathan declare interest and secure a party ticket.
This constitutional grey area has sparked intense debate among lawyers, politicians, and analysts, with opinions divided along interpretive lines whether the focus is on the number of times sworn in or the number of times elected.
As the 2027 election cycle approaches, stakeholders are urged to allow due process, respect the supremacy of the Constitution, and await judicial clarity where necessary. Political parties and aspirants are advised to weigh these legal considerations carefully in their strategic planning.