Azibaola Robert, cousin to former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, has escalated the eligibility debate with a forceful statement aimed at Festus Keyamo, SAN, and Professor Chidi Odinkalu, insisting Jonathan is “100% constitutionally and legally qualified” to contest again.
In a statement, Robert, a lawyer and 1990s pro-democracy organiser, framed their interventions as “unsolicited legal advice” and pointed both men to subsisting court pronouncements that, he says, resolve the matter in Jonathan’s favour.
He added that Jonathan already has “more cerebral, more experienced SANs” on call and offered to brief critics on the relevant rulings.
At the core of Robert’s claim is a 27 May 2022 judgment of the Federal High Court, Yenagoa, which addressed almost identical arguments now revived in public discourse.
In FHC/YNG/CS/86/2022, brought by two APC members (Andy Solomon and Idibiye Abraham) against Jonathan, the APC and INEC, Justice Isa Hamma Dashen held that Jonathan was eligible to contest because he had been elected president only once, in 2011.
The plaintiffs urged the court to apply Section 137(1)(b) and the then-new Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution (Fourth Alteration) to bar him, claiming he had “taken the oath… twice.”
Justice Dashen rejected this, ruling that Jonathan’s 6 May 2010 oath followed the constitutional succession after President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s death — not a general election — and therefore could not count as an “election” for the purpose of the two-election bar.
Crucially, the court anchored its reasoning on non-retroactivity. Section 137(3) — which limits a person who completes another’s term to “not… be elected… for more than a single term” — took legal effect on 7 June 2018.
Justice Dashen held that the provision could not be applied retroactively to impair rights that crystallised before 2018; had Jonathan won in 2015, he “would have been sworn in for the third time without any legal impediment”, because the restriction did not then exist.
The judge concluded that the plaintiffs had not discharged the burden of proof and “entered judgment for the first defendant” (Jonathan), dismissing all reliefs.
Contemporaneous coverage corroborated the essentials: the court declared Jonathan free to run; it emphasised that only the 2011 vote counted as an election into the presidency; and it stated expressly that no retroactive law could now block him.
Outlets including Reuters, ICIR and BusinessDay reported the thrust of the decision, while a detailed digest of the judge’s observations — including that Jonathan’s 2010 oath accompanied no general election — further explains why the suit failed.
Robert’s intervention repackages this legal position as a political message: critics’ opinions, he argues, “will never” shape Jonathan’s options; only court judgments and professional counsel matter.
As chatter about 2027 grows, fresh commentary has already resurfaced the Yenagoa ruling and its implications, underscoring that the live questions are now political calculus and party strategy rather than constitutional bars.
Why this matters
Precedent & text: A Federal High Court has already interpreted Section 137(1)(b) and (3) in this context, finding Jonathan eligible. Unless set aside on appeal, that declaration remains persuasive and is frequently cited in public law debates.
Legislative timeline: The Fourth Alteration’s Section 137(3) became operative on 7 June 2018, limiting any retroactive sweep against office-holders whose rights vested earlier.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
