2027: Lawyer Asks Court to Stop Jonathan from Running

Hot Source
Hot News
October 6, 2025
0 Comments

Alex Enumah in Abuja

An Abuja-based lawyer, Mr Johnmary Jideobi, has asked a Federal High Court in Abuja, for an order of perpetual injunction, restraining former President Goodluck Jonathan from presenting himself to any political party in the country for the purpose of contesting the 2027 presidential election.

The plaintiff, in addition, is seeking another order barring the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), from accepting from any political party Jonathan’s name or publishing same as a duly nominated candidate for the presidential contest.

Besides Jonathan, INEC and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) are the second and third defendants respectively.

The plaintiff, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/ 2025, is specifically asking the court to determine, “whether in view of the combined provisions of the entirety of Sections 1(1), (2) & (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and their conflated interpretation, the first defendant is eligible, under any circumstances [whatsoever] to contest for the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria?”

Upon the determination of the question, the plaintiff, sought four principal reliefs, to wit:

“A declaration of this honourable court that upon an intimate reading and complete understanding of the entirety of Sections 1(1), (2) & (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, the first defendant [Goodluck Ebele Jonathan] is ineligible to stand for or occupy the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“A declaration of this honorable court that in view of the entirety of Sections 1(1), (2) & (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended the 2nd Defendant [the INEC] lacks the constitutional power to receive from any political party the name of the first defendant or publish same as the candidate of any political party for the election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria holding in 2027 and other years to come.

“An order of perpetual injunction of this honourable court restraining the first defendant [Goodluck Ebele Jonathan] from presenting himself to any political party in Nigeria for nomination as its candidate for the general election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria holding in 2027 and other years to come.

“An order of perpetual injunction of this honourable court restraining the 2nd defendant [INEC] from either accepting from any political party in Nigeria the name of the 1st defendant [Goodluck Ebele Jonathan] or publishing same as a candidate for election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria holding in 2027 and other years to come.”

As well as, “an order of this honourable court directing the 3rd defendant [Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation] to ensure compliance with the decisions and Orders of this court”.

In an affidavit of facts that was deposed to in support of the suit by one Emmanuel Agida, the plaintiff told the court that he is an advocate of constitutionalism and the rule of law.

He told the court that the first defendant was first sworn in as president on May 6, 2010, following the death of then President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua on the May 5, 2010, having previously been the vice-president.

The plaintiff said he recently saw on various national dailies and television stations, reports of Jonathan’s intention to contest for presidency in 2027.

“That the plaintiff believes that the 1st defendant, having completed the unexpired term of late President Yar’Adua and subsequently served a full term after the 2011 election, has exhausted the constitutional limit of two tenures as president.

“That if the court does not intervene timeously, a political party may present the 1st defendant as its presidential candidate in the 2027 general election, thereby breaching the Constitution.”

On his locus standi (legal right) to institute the action, the plaintiff maintained that part of his duties, as a lawyer, is to forestall a violation of the constitution and to uphold the rule of law.

“There are chances that one of the political parties in Nigeria may favour the 1st defendant to stand as its presidential candidate in the forthcoming 2027 general election to be conducted and overseen by the 2nd defendant.

“If unchallenged, the 1st defendant may enter the 2027 presidential race on the platform of one of the political parties in Nigeria and may possibly emerge the winner of the said election.

“In the event the 1st defendant is returned as elected and sworn as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria come in 2027, it will mark the 3rd time the 1st defendant will be taking oath of office as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“In the event the 1st defendant is returned as elected and sworn as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria come in 2027, the plaintiff as a Nigerian citizen, would become one of those under the governance control of the 1st defendant [who by virtue of his office would be saddled with the responsibility of executing the laws of the country].

“The plaintiff has instituted this suit in the public interest, in the defence of the rule of law and accentuation of the supremacy of the constitution and to preserve the integrity of the Nigerian Constitutional order.

“It will be in the interest of justice for this honourable court to grant the prayers contained on the face of this originating summons,” the affidavit further read.

No date has been fixed for hearing of the suit.

Hot Source

Hot Source
Hot News
October 6, 2025
3 views

Proof of Murder Where the Victim’s Body Cannot be Found

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 7th day of March, 2025

Before Their Lordships

Helen Morenikeji Ogunwumiju

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim

Haruna Simon Tsammani

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru

Muhammed Baba Idris

Justices, Supreme Court

SC/1051/2018

Between

BETTY STEPHEN APPELLANT

And

1THE STATE RESPONDENT

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Haruna Simon Tsammani, JSC)

Facts

The Appellant was the first accused before the trial Court on four counts: conspiracy to steal a child, conspiracy to commit murder, child stealing, and murder. It was alleged that the Appellant abducted one Ifueko, a child of about three years, and handed her over to the second accused for a money-making ritual. Subsequently, the child disappeared and was never seen again. The Appellant, who was apparently in custody of the child, failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the child’s disappearance. This matter was reported to the Police, who investigated and arrested both the Appellant and his co-accused. The Appellant and the co-accused persons made confessional statements at the Police station, which were tendered in evidence and admitted after the conduct of a trial-within-trial to test their veracity.

The Appellant and other accused persons were tried and convicted on all four counts. Dissatisfied with the conviction, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. The Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues for Determination

The Appellant and the Respondent raised two similar issues for determination of the appeal, thus:

i. Whether the learned trial Judge was not in error when he admitted Exhibit “B 1” in the main trial (after the mini trial), even when the Plaintiff’s witness who testified as PW 1 in the mini trial admitted that one Inspector Ogunsare was the maker or recorder of same, and no proper foundation was laid as to his whereabouts?

ii. Whether the learned Justices of the Court below were not in error, when they affirmed the position of the trial Court that the Respondent proved beyond reasonable doubt the four count charge against the Appellant, considering the totality of the evidence led in this case at the trial Court?

Arguing the appeal, Counsel for the Appellant submitted on issue one that the trial court erred in admitting Exhibit B1, an extra-judicial statement, without properly determining its voluntariness through a mandatory trial-within-trial. Citing cases such as DAURA & ANOR v THE STATE (1980) 12 NSCC 334 AT 345, Counsel emphasised that whenever voluntariness is questioned, the trial Judge must assess the statement’s admissibility by hearing evidence on whether it was made voluntarily and free from duress, threats, or undue influence. Counsel submitted further that, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, and the accused need only raise doubt on voluntariness to challenge admission. He contended that in this case, the prosecution failed to discharge this burden, noting that PW4, who testified on voluntariness, lacked proper foundation as he was neither the recorder of the statement nor shown to satisfy the conditions under Section 39 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The absence of the actual recorder’s testimony and any explanation or evidence negating torture or coercion, further undermined the prosecution’s case.

In response, the Respondent maintained that the statement was properly admitted after a valid trial-within-trial, highlighting that the Appellant volunteered the statement in English, which was also recorded in English, removing the necessity to call the original recorder. PW4 was part of the Police team involved and competent to testify on the voluntariness of the statement. The prosecution was not obliged to call multiple witnesses, when one eye witness suffices. Counsel referred to relevant authorities such as MICHAEL OLOYE v THE STATE (2018) LPELR-44775 (SC), to support this position. The Respondent submitted further that the assertion of torture by the Appellant was contradicted by the circumstances, noting the signing of the statement and hospital visit afterward. Hence, the confessional statement was rightly admitted and properly relied upon by the courts in convicting the Appellant.

On issue two, it was argued for the Appellant that the prosecution bears the burden to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt, and this burden never shifts. Citing ONUGBOGU v THE STATE (1974) 9 NSCC 356 and AIGBADION v THE STATE (2000) 7 NWLR (PT.666) 686, as well as Section 36(5) of the Constitution oF Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, Counsel argued that the evidence of the Respondent was conflicting, insufficient, and raised reasonable doubt. It was contended that the testimony of PW1 was inconsistent with his earlier Police statement (Exhibit A), and no explanation was given for these contradictions, relying on authorities including UKPONG v THE QUEEN (1961) 1 SCNLR 53 and NWANKWOALA & ANOR v THE STATE (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 1000) 663. Also, PW2 and PW3 did not implicate the Appellant in their evidence, with PW 3 notably not making any statement to the Police. Citing OHWOVORIOLE v FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2003) 3 NWLR (PT. 803) 176 and GBOKO v THE STATE (2009) 17 NWLR (PT. 1063) 272, the testimony of PW 5 was described as hearsay, and therefore, inadmissible under Section 38 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Counsel also criticised the Police investigation led by PW4 as incomplete and shoddy, referencing Section 214(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, the Police Act, and OLATINWO v THE STATE (2013) 8 NWLR (PT. 1355) 126. He posited that the prosecution failed to conduct further investigations after the Appellant’s denial, relying solely on the confessional statement (Exhibit B1). Counsel argued that no prosecution witnesses were eyewitnesses to the commission of the offence, and urged that the case was built on inadmissible hearsay. Regarding the victim’s presumed death, Counsel submitted that under Section 164(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, death cannot be presumed death until the end of seven years, and since the case commenced within that period, the trial court erred in its presumption.

Reacting to the submissions above, the Respondent argued that the confession was voluntarily made and properly admitted after a trial-within-trial. It was stressed that the lower courts made concurrent findings of fact, which the Supreme Court should not disturb except if perverse or unjust, citing ARCHIBONG v STATE (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt.1000) 349. The confession was corroborated by credible evidence, and it is settled law that a direct, positive, and unequivocal confession may ground a conviction alone, in line with the decision in AKPA v STATE (2008) 14 NWLR (PT.1106) 72. The Respondent maintained that the offences of conspiracy, child stealing, and murder were proved beyond reasonable doubt under the Criminal Code Law applicable to Edo State. Circumstantial evidence and the presumption of death were appropriately relied on, guided by the decision in MUSTAPHA MOHAMMED & ANOR v THE STATE (2007) LPELR-1894 (SC). PW1’s minor inconsistencies were immaterial to the overall evidence, citing OGUNBAYO v THE STATE (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt.789) 76. Counsel urged that the Police investigation was proper and sufficient, to support the convictions.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

Deciding the first issue, the Supreme Court first clarified the point that an accused may be convicted solely on his confessional statement, so long as the statement is shown to have been made voluntarily, and is direct, positive, unequivocal, and duly proved at trial. It is the reasoning of the court that PW 4 in whose presence the confessional statement was made is competent to testify on the circumstances under which the statement was made, even though PW 4 was not the person who recorded the statement. Regarding the Appellant’s argument that the prosecution’s failure to call the recorder amounted to withholding evidence under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011, the Supreme Court held that “it is the duty of the prosecution to call such number of material witnesses as it requires to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and it is not within the power of the defence to dictate for the prosecution, which witness to call or not to call.” Their Lordships reasoned that since there is another witness to give testimony on the Appellant’s voluntariness in making the statement, the evidence of the recorder of the confessional statement is dispensable, and failure to call the recorder did not amount to withholding of evidence. The court concluded that based on the trial-within-trial evidence, the Appellant’s confessional statement was voluntarily made, as the Appellant did not successfully challenge the evidence of PW 4.

Regarding the second issue on evaluation of evidence, specifically on whether the charge of murder could be sustained even though the victim, Ifueko Stephen, was not found. The Supreme Court held that for the fact of death to be proved by circumstantial evidence, the evidence relied upon must clearly, positively, and unequivocally suggest that the victim of the offence charged is dead. The fact of death, may be presumed by circumstantial evidence – OTKIR v A-G OF BENDEL STATE (1986) 2 NWLR (PT. 24) 648. The court held further that the fact of death can be proved by circumstantial evidence, even when neither the body nor any trace of the body could be found – ADEPETU v STATE (1998) 9 NWLR (PT. 565) 185 AT 207.

In the present case, the Court found that the Appellant confessed to delivering the victim to the second accused person for ritual purposes involving mutilation of the victim’s body, including the cutting of the victim’s fingers and removal of hair, in exchange for the sum of N1,500,000.00. Since the child could not be found, the Court reasoned that “the only reasonable and logical conclusion is that, the child died and the remnant (body) secretly discarded where it has not been found.” Their Lordships, therefore, concluded that based on the circumstantial evidence and Appellant’s confessional statement, the offences for which the Appellant was charged were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgement of the lower courts.

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

O.T. Okeke (Legal Aid Pro bono Counsel) for the Appellant

S.M. Iteinmo (On the fiat of the HAG of Edo State) for the Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Abuja On Friday, the 7th day of March, 2025 Before Their Lordships Helen Morenikeji Ogunwumiju Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Haruna Simon Tsammani Habeeb

Hot Source
Hot News
October 6, 2025
2 views

Tinubu Celebrates Dele Alake at 69, Describes him as consummate strategist, outstanding journalist, accomplished public servant

Deji Elumoye in Abuja

President Bola Tinubu has felicitated his long-time ally and Minister of Solid Minerals, Dr Dele Alake, on his 69th birthday anniversary.
The President, in a statement issued on Monday by his Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, described Alake as a dependable ally, a consummate strategist, an outstanding journalist, and an accomplished public servant whose commitment to national development and good governance has remained unwavering over the decades.
President Tinubu recalled his long years of friendship and partnership with the celebrant, noting his exceptional public communication and national development service.
The President commended the Minister’s ongoing efforts to reposition the Solid Minerals sector as a significant revenue earner for Nigeria through policy innovation, investment promotion, and integration of artisanal miners into the formal economy in line with the Renewed Hope Agenda.
“On this special day, I pray that Almighty God will continue to bless Dele with good health, wisdom, and strength.
“He has remained a committed, loyal, and outstanding ally for several decades. His steadfastness and unyielding commitment to national development and progress stand him out as a patriot.
“I wish him a long life and more years of service to our nation and humanity”, President Tinubu said.

Deji Elumoye in Abuja President Bola Tinubu has felicitated his long-time ally and Minister of Solid Minerals, Dr Dele Alake, on his 69th birthday anniversary.The President, in a statement issued

Hot SOURCE News

Or check our Popular Categories...

Hot SOURCE News

Or check our Popular Categories...

2027: Lawyer Asks Court to Stop Jonathan from Running

Related

Hot Source

Related Posts

Proof of Murder Where the Victim’s Body Cannot be Found

Tinubu Celebrates Dele Alake at 69, Describes him as consummate strategist, outstanding journalist, accomplished public servant

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Business & Economy

CBN directs banks to submit monthly reports on POS agents activities

Transforming energy solutions: Starsight Energy’s vision for Nigerian businesses

Nigeria Startup Act: NITDA names Iyin Aboyeji, 3 others for Innovation Council

JAMB mandates Microsoft Camera for CBT centres ahead of 2026 UTME registration

PZ Cussons shares rally 22% after Q1 profit beats full-year record

Livestock Policy: Nigeria unveils new framework to boost food security

Dangote Refinery: Shettima warns PENGASSAN against disrupting operations

SendOva launches in the UK to redefine cross-border remittances

From Renters to Owners: FG-backed mortgage reforms help 700+ Nigerians secure homes in 6 Months

FGN Savings Bond: DMO opens October offer at 14.06%, 15.06%

Markets in shock: 25% capital gains tax, PenCom rules & Naira outlook

Cooking gas price soars to N3,000 per kg in Lagos amid scarcity

Gold hits $3,900 after 50% year-to-date rally

Payaza sets new African Fintech Standard with N20.3 billion ($13.5M) Debt Redemption and Triple Credit Rating upgrades

CPPE seeks new law to protect investors, employers in Nigeria

Seplat Energy ties Africa’s prosperity to Domestic Gas Development

Presco launches academy, training Africa’s next agriculture business leaders

FCCPC approves sale of Chivita|Hollandia (CHI Limited) to UAC of Nigeria PLC

AccessCorp, Aradel Holdings, MTN, two others get analysts’ buy recommendation

Top 10 African countries with the largest number of airports and airfields

NiMet forecasts 3 days thunderstorm, heavy rain across Nigeria

Jaiz Bank, FCMB Group, Julius Berger top stock pick this week

NUPRC approved 79 FDPs with $40 billion potential investment within two years – Official

FG revamps agricultural education to boost food security, jobs

Trillion-Naira club: 10 most profitable heavyweight stocks in Q3 2025

United Capital: Profit up, stock down; is the market overlooking its growth

Capital Gains Tax on equities triggers investor panic, capital flight fears

Sahara Group targets 350,000 bbl/d, acquires new seven oil rigs

NUPRC: Nigeria’s rig count surges to 69

Imisi wins N150M BBNaija S10 grand prize

DataPro Marks 30th Anniversary with Finance Webinar

Adedeji: New Tax Regime Will Usher Unprecedented Opportunities for Economy

Polaris Bank, NCF Expand Tree Planting Drive to Lagos, Others

ipNX Calls for Reliable Backbone Infrastructure to Drive AI Adoption

Segilola: Nigeria’s Solid Minerals Sector is Investable, Profitable

Panasonic, Proxynet Communications to Deliver Advanced Broadcast Solutions