2027 Presidency: INEC Absent As Court Defers Hearing In Case Against Jonathan
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday deferred the hearing of the suit challenging former President Goodluck Jonathan’s eligibility to contest the 2027 presidential election until Monday.
This development came on a day the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which is listed as a defendant in the matter, failed to send legal representation to court.
However, both former President Jonathan and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) were represented during the proceedings.
While Jonathan, through his team of lawyers led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, had already filed processes challenging the competence of the suit, a lawyer from the office of the AGF, J. D. Esho, told the court that the office had not yet received a copy of the originating summons.
Esho disclosed that Jonathan had also sent the processes he filed in opposition to the suit to the office of the AGF.
Although a registrar of the court confirmed that INEC was duly served with a hearing notice, there was no evidence that the Commission had received a copy of the plaintiff’s suit.
Justice Peter Lifu, who is presiding over the case, expressed his displeasure at the slow pace, even as he berated the plaintiff for not prosecuting the case diligently.
He proceeded to award a fine of N1 million against the plaintiff and in favour of ex‑President Jonathan.
The fine followed an application by Jonathan’s lawyer, Chief Uche, SAN, who had demanded N5 million, accusing the plaintiff of tardiness.
Referencing INEC’s election timetable, Justice Lifu held that, in view of the political undertone of the case, it ought to be expeditiously determined.
“The duty of this court is to ensure that political cases are given accelerated hearing and disposed of expeditiously.
“In that wise, and as earlier stated, this court reiterates the provisions of the National Judicial Policy in case management.
“I hereby order as follows:
“The plaintiff, who filed this suit on October 6, 2025, and has not deemed it fit to serve, is hereby granted a grace of two hours from now, that is, 10:30 a.m., to serve all processes on the 2nd and 3rd defendants (INEC and AGF) unfailingly.
“The 2nd and 3rd defendants are hereby ordered to file and serve their responses, if any, before 11:00 a.m. on Monday, 18 May 2026.
“By consent of counsel, this suit is adjourned to 18 May 2026 at 12:00 noon for definite hearing of the originating summons and all pending applications,” Justice Lifu held.
The plaintiff, Mr. Johnmary Jideobi, had earlier filed a motion for Justice Lifu to recuse himself from the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/ 2025, accusing him of bias.
He further petitioned the Chief Judge of the court, Justice John Tsoho, demanding retrieval of the case file and its reassignment to another judge for the objective determination of the legal questions posed therein.
In a petition dated May 9, the plaintiff alleged that Justice Lifu took decisions that revealed his bias against him.
According to him, his counsel, Ndubuisi Ukpai, had notified the court that all parties in the suit had been duly served with the originating processes and had also confirmed that the 1st defendant (Jonathan) had just served him with a counter-affidavit, written address, and notice of preliminary objection in opposition to the suit.
The plaintiff said his lawyer thereafter sought an adjournment to enable him to respond to all the processes, pursuant to the provision of Order 13 Rule 50 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, which provides 14 days within which to fully prepare and file a reply.
He alleged that, without any application by any of the parties for an abridgement of time, the judge unilaterally gave his lawyer only three days—which included a weekend—to respond to the processes.
The petitioner told the CJ that, despite pleas from his lawyer that he had a case already fixed before another court, Justice Lifu declined to rescind his decision, citing the election timetable of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which none of the parties had raised.
“I most respectfully submit that the actions of Hon. Jusuce Peter Lifu have created a situation where I no longer believe I can receive a far hearing, based on the following premises.
“The learned Judge, without any prompt/application from the parties, stripped me of my statutory 14-day window to file a Reply to the 1st Defendant’s Counter Affidavit and Written Address, which evinces a radical departure from regular procedure and suggests a predisposition against my Constitutional right.
“The Judge’s unilateral introduction of the INEC timetable, which was not part of the 1st Defendant’s arguments, I believe, suggest that the Judge has stepped out of his role as a neutral arbiter and is acting as an advocate for a ‘speedy disposal’ that specifically prejudices my case.
“Section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees me adequate time and facilities to prepare my case. Forcing a response within 72 hours over a weekend, when no emergency was proven, is a grave violation of this right.
