May 11, (THEWILL) — A fresh twist emerged on Monday in the suit seeking to stop former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election after the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered that fresh hearing notices be served on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), whose absence had stalled proceedings in the matter.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025, was filed on October 6, 2025, by a lawyer, Johnmary Jideobi, who is seeking a judicial pronouncement barring Jonathan from participating in the 2027 presidential race.
In the action, Jideobi named Jonathan as the first defendant, while INEC and the Attorney General of the Federation were joined as second and third defendants, respectively.
At the resumed hearing on Monday before Justice Peter Lifu, only counsel to the former president, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, appeared in court. He informed the court that the matter had earlier been scheduled for hearing and that the court had even graciously fixed proceedings for 2 p.m. to accommodate the parties.
The senior advocate subsequently urged the court to strike out the suit for lack of diligent prosecution. According to him, counsel to the plaintiff, Ndubuisi Ukpai, who had been present during the previous adjournment, neither appeared in court nor communicated any reason for his absence.
Uche further observed that the plaintiff himself, who is also a legal practitioner, failed to attend proceedings and offered no explanation for his absence.
“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 submitted.
He added that, given the stage of proceedings and the exchange of court processes between parties, the court possessed the authority either to strike out or dismiss the matter entirely.
“In a matter where processes have been exchanged, we may ask that the matter be dismissed”, he argued.
The senior lawyer further maintained that the rules of the Federal High Court empowered the judge to terminate the suit for want of diligent prosecution.
“So, we humbly apply that it be struck out or dismissed with a very substantial cost”, he prayed.
Following the application, Justice Lifu directed the court registrar to verify whether hearing notices had been duly served on INEC and the AGF, listed respectively as the second and third defendants in the suit.
The registrar subsequently confirmed that neither INEC nor the AGF had been served with hearing notices.
In view of the development, Justice Lifu held that the principles of fair hearing required that the two defendants be given another opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
However, Uche insisted that both INEC and the AGF were passive parties in the litigation and argued that striking out the suit would not prejudice them in any way.
According to him, the circumstances of the case, as well as the status of the former president involved, justified the court taking a firm position against the plaintiff. He therefore requested that the court award a cost of N5 million against the plaintiff for failing to diligently prosecute the case.
“For every default, there must be a consequence. So we urge your lordship to exercise the right you have under the rules of the court in our favour”, Uche argued.
Justice Lifu, however, declined the request for immediate dismissal or striking out of the suit, reiterating the need to ensure that all parties were accorded a fair hearing.
“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,” the judge stated.
The court consequently adjourned the case until May 15 for a definite hearing.
“In the circumstances of this case, I am minded to bend backwards to accommodate the plaintiff and the 2nd and 3rd defendants who have consistently been absent”, Justice Lifu added.
The judge also observed that the hearing time had been fixed at 2 p.m. based on an agreement reached with counsel to the plaintiff. He ordered that fresh hearing notices be issued and served on the plaintiff, INEC and the AGF “for the last time.”
Meanwhile, court filings showed that Jonathan had earlier challenged the competence of the suit through a preliminary objection filed by his legal team.
In the objection, the former president argued that the plaintiff lacked the legal standing to institute the action.
Jonathan described the suit as speculative, hypothetical and premature, insisting that it was based merely on media speculation regarding the 2027 presidential election.
According to the former president, no cause of action had arisen because there had been no nomination process, no declaration of candidacy and no election.
“The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain hypothetical constitutional questions,” Jonathan argued in the filing.
He further contended that the suit constituted “a gross abuse of court process” intended to secure a “pre-emptive political judgment.”
The former president also described the inclusion of INEC and the AGF in the suit as a “cosmetic joinder” aimed solely at creating jurisdiction.
Jonathan additionally informed the court that the issues raised by the plaintiff had already been determined in an existing judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State. He therefore urged the Abuja court to strike out the case for want of jurisdiction and abuse of judicial process.
Felix Ifijeh is a journalist with years of professional reporting experience. Known for his keen news sense, compelling storytelling and commitment to accurate, impactful reporting, he has built a reputation for turning leads into clear, engaging, and well-structured reports that resonate with readers. His work reflects deep newsroom experience and a commitment to accurate, impactful journalism.
