…petitions Chief Judge over alleged denial of fair hearing as court adjourns matter
By Halima Abubakar
Proceedings in the suit challenging the eligibility of former President Goodluck Jonathan to contest the 2027 presidential election took a new twist on Monday after the plaintiff accused the presiding judge of bias and formally requested the reassignment of the case.
The suit, filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, was instituted by an Abuja-based lawyer, Johnmary Jideobi, against Jonathan, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The plaintiff also wrote to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, urging him to withdraw the case file from Justice Peter Lifu and reassign it to another judge, alleging that recent procedural decisions in the matter showed signs of partiality.
In a petition dated May 9, the plaintiff argued that the court had abridged timelines for filing responses in a way that, according to him, compromised his constitutional right to fair hearing.
He claimed that although court rules provide 14 days to respond to processes, the judge allegedly granted only three days—including a weekend—for him to reply to Jonathan’s counter-affidavit and preliminary objection.
The plaintiff further argued that his counsel’s request for more time, based on a conflicting court engagement, was dismissed, and that the court’s reliance on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) timetable—introduced suo motu—was not raised by any party.
He described the development as a denial of adequate time and facilities to prepare his case, citing provisions of the 1999 Constitution on fair hearing.
The petition asked the Chief Judge for “the immediate transfer” of the suit and for proceedings before Justice Lifu to be suspended pending the decision.
When the matter came up on Monday, neither the plaintiff nor the representatives of INEC and the Attorney-General were present in court.
However, Jonathan was represented by senior advocate, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, who urged the court to strike out the case for lack of diligent prosecution or, in the alternative, dismiss it with costs.
Justice Lifu noted the absence of proof of service of hearing notices on some parties, particularly INEC and the Attorney-General, and held that proper service was essential for the matter to proceed.
The judge subsequently granted a final adjournment and ordered that hearing notices be served on all affected parties, fixing Friday for continuation of proceedings.
In the substantive suit, the plaintiff is asking the court to determine whether, under Sections 1(1)(2)(3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution, Jonathan is eligible to contest the 2027 presidential election.
He is also seeking an order restraining Jonathan from seeking nomination and preventing INEC from accepting or publishing his name as a presidential candidate, as well as directing the Attorney-General to ensure compliance with any court order issued.
Jonathan, in his response, has urged the court to dismiss the suit, describing it as frivolous and an attempt to relitigate issues he claims have already been settled by competent courts.
© 2026, Standard Focus. All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from STANDARD FOCUS.