Suit to bar Jonathan from 2027 presidential race abuse of court process – Oba Maduabuchi

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Oba Maduabuchi, has described the suit filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja, seeking to stop former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election, as “an abuse of court process.”

Maduabuchi made this assertion on Tuesday during an interview on Arise TV’s Morning Show.

“An abuse of court process occurs when someone tries to relitigate an issue that has already been settled by a court of competent jurisdiction,” he explained.

According to him, the question of Jonathan’s qualification or disqualification had already been adjudicated in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State. “Nobody has taken that issue on appeal,” he said. “Until that judgment is set aside, it remains the law.”

The senior lawyer stated that any party attempting to reopen that settled issue in another court of coordinate jurisdiction was merely “abusing the process of the court,” describing such litigants as “busy bodies.”

Maduabuchi further explained that what governs any legal situation is the law in force “when the act in question was done.” He queried whether Section 137(3) of the Constitution existed in 2010 when Jonathan took the oath of office.

He noted that the provision was only enacted in 2018. “When Goodluck Jonathan was taking the oath of office, there was no statutory limitation that could inhibit him from running for two constitutionally guaranteed terms,” he said.

The SAN questioned whether Jonathan took any oath after the 2018 amendment, comparing attempts to apply the new law retroactively to punishing someone under a law that did not exist at the time of the act.

Illustrating his point, Maduabuchi recalled that judges’ retirement age was previously 65 before being raised to 70, asking whether a judge who retired before the amendment could return to the bench under the new law.

He stressed that “the law demands certainty,” adding that “in 2010 and 2011, when Goodluck Jonathan took the oath of office, the prohibition in Section 137(3) was not in existence and therefore not binding on him.”

He concluded that no “pyrotechnic argument” could give life to a law that did not exist at the time, referencing a decision of the Court of Appeal which affirmed that Jonathan had the right to contest and that retrospective laws could not be applied against him.