Join our Telegram group and receive breaking and trending news updates directly on your phone.
Join for News Updates ✕
By Correspondent in Abuja.
A suit seeking to stop former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election suffered a setback on Monday after proceedings could not go on at the Federal High Court in Abuja due to the absence of the plaintiff and key defendants.
The suit, filed by lawyer Johnmary Jideobi before Justice Peter Lifu, was stalled as neither counsel to the plaintiff nor representatives of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation appeared in court.
When the matter was called, only the counsel to Jonathan, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), was present.
Uche informed the court that the matter had been scheduled for hearing at 2 p.m., adding that the court had earlier accommodated the parties by fixing the time for the proceedings.
The senior advocate subsequently urged the court to strike out the suit for lack of diligent prosecution.
According to him, the counsel to the plaintiff, Ndubuisi Ukpai, who was present at the previous adjournment, neither appeared in court nor communicated any reason for his absence.
He further argued that the plaintiff himself, who is also a lawyer, failed to appear without any explanation.
“My Lord, what it means is that they have lost interest in pursuing the suit, particularly after we have filed and served our notice of preliminary objection and other processes,” Uche told the court.
He maintained that since parties had already exchanged processes, the court could dismiss the suit, stressing that the rules empowered the court to strike out matters abandoned by litigants.
Uche also requested a N5 million cost against the plaintiff, insisting that there should be consequences for default in court proceedings.
Justice Lifu, however, sought clarification from the court registrar on whether hearing notices had been served on INEC and the Attorney-General of the Federation, listed as the second and third defendants respectively.
The registrar confirmed that both parties had not been served.
Following the disclosure, the judge held that the interest of fair hearing required that the affected parties be given another opportunity to participate in the case.
Responding, Uche argued that both INEC and the AGF had remained passive in the matter and that striking out the suit would not prejudice them.
The judge, however, insisted that INEC, being a critical party in the case, must be heard before any decision could be taken.
“Let us give them time. Let this order be served on INEC because INEC is fundamental in this case. Let us listen to INEC in this matter,” Justice Lifu said.
The court consequently adjourned the matter until May 15 for definite hearing.
Justice Lifu also ordered that fresh hearing notices be issued and served on the plaintiff, INEC and the AGF for what he described as the last opportunity.
“In the circumstances of this case, I am minded to bend backward to accommodate the plaintiff and the 2nd and 3rd defendants who have consistently been absent,” the judge stated.
Meanwhile, Jonathan, through his preliminary objection filed by Uche, challenged the competence of the suit, arguing that the plaintiff lacked the legal standing to institute the action.
The former president described the suit as speculative, premature and based on media conjectures, noting that there had been no nomination, election or valid cause of action to justify the case.
According to the objection, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain hypothetical constitutional questions, while the suit amounted to an abuse of court process aimed at securing a pre-emptive political judgment.
Jonathan further argued that the issues raised had already been settled by an earlier judgment of the Federal High Court in Yenagoa.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025 and filed on Oct. 6, 2025, joined INEC and the Attorney-General of the Federation as co-defendants.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.
