Politics
Jonathan’s Eligibility: Ozekhome Faults Falana
As pressure continues to mount on former President Goodluck Jonathan to contest the 2023 presidential election, two renowned lawyers in the country have sharply disagreed on his eligibility to run for the Presidency.
While human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) is of the opinion that Jonathan is legally hamstrung to contest for the highest position in the country, his colleague of other inner bar and an activist lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), argued otherwise, insisting that the former President is eligible to return to Aso Rock.
Falana, in his submission on the subject matter argued that former President Goodluck Jonathan cannot contest in the 2023 presidential election.
While citing constitutional provisions barring the ex-President from seeking re-election, Falana said Jonathan, who was Nigerian President between 2010 and 2015, would breach constitutional term limits of two terms of eight years if he runs for the Presidency and wins again.
He recalled that Mr Jonathan became the President of Nigeria in 2010 following the sudden death of President Umaru Yar’Adua, and later contested and won the 2011 presidential election.
Mr Jonathan spent five years in office as President which would make it nine years in office if he contests and wins again, Mr Falana said.
“Dr. Jonathan is disqualified from contesting the 2023 presidential election. The reason is that if he wins the election, he will spend an additional term of four years.
“It means that he would spend a cumulative period of nine years as President of Nigeria in utter breach of Section 137 of the Constitution which provides for a maximum of two terms of eight years,” Mr Falana said.
He further stated that by virtue of Section 137 (3) of the Nigerian Constitution, Mr Jonathan cannot seek a re-election to the office of the President having completed the tenure of the late President Yar’Adua and sworn in again for a full four-year term in 2011 upon winning the presidential election in his own name.
Section 137 (3) of the Constitution in reference reads: “A person who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as President shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.”
But faulting this line of argument, Ozekhome said: “The truth of the matter is that the antagonists of Jonathan running in 2023, in their strange line of argument, are mainly relying on the above Section 137(3). They have probably not addressed their minds to Sections 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, and Section 285(13) of the same Fourth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which they are relying on. More revealing is that these antagonists are probably not aware of an extant and subsisting Court of Appeal decision where Jonathan was frontally confronted and challenged before the 2015 presidential election, on the same ground of being ineligible to contest the said 2015 election, having allegedly been elected for two previous terms of office. The Section 137(3) being relied upon by the antagonists was signed into law in 2018, three years after Jonathan had left office. Can he be caught in its web retrospectively?
The case in question is CYriacus Njoku V Goodluck Ebele Jonathan (2015) Lpelr-244496 (CA). In that case, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, held that President Goodluck Jonathan had only taken the oath of office once and therefore upheld his eligibility to contest the then Nigeria’s presidential election slated for March 28, 2015.
The intermediate court held that the oath of office President Jonathan took in 2010 was merely to complete the “unexpired tenure” of late President Umar Yar’Adua, who died while in office as President.
The appeal had been brought before the court by one Cyriacus Njoku, who was challenging the ruling of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, which on March 1, 2013, had dismissed the suit he filed to stop President Jonathan from contesting the 2015 polls.
In a lead judgement delivered by Justice Abubakar Yahaya, the full panel of the court unanimously held that President Jonathan had only spent one term in office as President, going by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
President Jonathan had been empowered as acting President on February 9, 2010, following a motion for operation of the “doctrine of necessity” by the Senate, owing to the protracted stay of late President Umaru Yar’Adua in Saudi Arabia on medical grounds.
When President Yar’Adua eventually died on May 5, 2010, Jonathan was sworn in as president to serve the unexpired residue of office of Yar’Adua. Jonathan was later elected President in 2011 for the first time, on his own merit.
However, the court ruled that the oath that Jonathan took in 2010 was merely to complete the unexpired tenure of late Yar’Adua; adding that by virtue of Section 135 (2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, Jonathan only took his first oath in May, 2011. The Court of Appeal further held that disqualification is through election, not oath taking.
is therefore clear that section 137(3) of the Fourth Alteration to the Constitution took effect from 11th June, 2018, when President Muhammadu Buhari assented to it. Section 137(3) is subject to section 318(4) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that, “the Interpretation Act shall apply for the purposes of interpreting (its) provisions”.
Section 137(3) is one piece of legislation that can be termed retrospective or retroactive legislation.
On retrospectivity of legislation, the apex court, coram Justice Kekere-Ekun, J.S.C, held in the case of SPDC V. ANARO & ORS (2015) LPELR-24750(SC) at (Pp. 64 paras. B), thus:
“There is a general presumption against retrospective legislation. It is presumed that the legislature does not intend injustice or absurdity. Courts therefore lean against giving certain statutes retrospective operation. Generally, statutes are construed as operating only in cases or on facts, which come into existence after the statutes were passed unless a retrospective effect is clearly intended. It was held inter alia, in: Ojokolobo Vs Alamu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 377 @ 402 F-H that it is a fundamental rule of Nigerian law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act or Law; or arises by necessary and distinct implication. See also: Udoh Vs O.H.M.B. (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.304) 39 @ 149 F – G; Adegbenro Vs Akintola (1963) All NLR 305 @ 308”
Politics
FG’s Economic Policies Not Working – APC Chieftain
A senator who represented Taraba Central, Mr Abubakar Yusuf, has declared that the economic policies of President Bola Tinubu are not yielding the expected results.
His comment is one of the strongest internal critiques yet from within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
The comment underscores the growing dissatisfaction within sections of the ruling party over the direction and impact of the administration’s economic reforms amid rising living costs and fiscal pressures across the country.
Mr Yusuf, who served in the Senate between 2015 and 2023 under the platform of the APC, made the remarks during an appearance on national television.
Responding to a question on whether the administration’s economic direction, often referred to as Tinubunomics, was working, Mr Yusuf answered in the contrary.
“For me, it is not working. I am a member of the APC. I would be the last person to hide the facts”, he said.
He said while the government might be operating diligently within its policy structure, the framework itself is ill-suited to Nigeria’s current realities
“Within the policy framework, yes, they are doing their best, but it is not the framework that is suitable for Nigeria at the point in time that President Asiwaju came into power,” he said.
Mr Yusuf criticised the immediate removal of fuel subsidy on the day the president was sworn in, arguing that the decision lacked sufficient consultation and planning.
“I am one of those who say President Asiwaju ought to have waited. Not on the day he was sworn in to say subsidy is gone. On what basis?”, he asked.
He urged broader engagement before major fiscal decisions are taken.
“Sit down with your cabinet, sit down with your ministers, sit down with your advisers,” he said, dismissing the argument that subsidy removal was justified solely on grounds of corruption.
The former lawmaker identified “structural flaws” in the country’s budgeting system, particularly the envelope budgeting model.
“One of the basic problems is that before you budget, you should have a plan. The envelope system we have been operating has been you budget before you plan. That has been a major issue”, he said.
He argued that allocating spending ceilings without aligning them to concrete development strategies inevitably weakens implementation and delivery.
“If you give me an envelope which is contrary to my plan, whether it is plus or minus, there is no way I am going to implement my plan. It is bound to fail,” he said.
Mr Yusuf called for the scrapping of the envelope budgeting system, noting that he had consistently opposed it even during his years in the National Assembly.
“It is not good for us. It is not going to work well for us,” he said.
He further blamed poor capital releases and persistent deficit financing for undermining budget performance over the years.
“We could not meet 60 percent of our capital budget in all these years. No releases. If you make a budget and the release is very poor, there is no way the budget will be executed”, he stated.
According to him, weak fund disbursement mechanisms and reliance on deficit financing have entrenched a cycle of underperformance.
“Our budget ought to have been a surplus budget, but all our budgets have always been deficit financing budgets,” Mr Yusuf added.
Politics
Reps To Meet,’Morrow Over INEC’s 2027 Election Timetable
The Nigerian House of Representatives has resolved to reconvene for an emergency session tomorrow February 17, 2026, to deliberate on issues arising from the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) release of the timetable for the 2027 general elections.
The decision was disclosed in a statement issued by the House Spokesman, Rep. Akin Rotimi, who described the electoral body’s announcement as one of “constitutional and national significance.”
INEC had fixed February 20, 2027, for the Presidential and National Assembly elections.
According to the statement, members of the Green Chamber were notified of the emergency sitting through an internal memorandum from the Speaker’s office.
The session is expected to focus on legislative matters connected to the newly released timetable, reflecting the House’s resolve to act promptly on issues affecting the nation’s democratic process.
Rep. Rotimi noted that all related businesses would be treated with urgency and urged lawmakers to prioritise attendance in view of the importance of the deliberations.
INEC had on Friday formally unveiled the comprehensive schedule for the 2027 polls, including timelines for party primaries slated for July to September 2026, as well as the commencement of Continuous Voter Registration in April 2026.
The development comes amid ongoing consultations and proposed amendments to the Electoral Act ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Politics
Group Continues Push For Real Time Election Results Transmission
As the controversy over the transmission of election results continues across the country, the Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), a pro democracy organisation in the country, has criticised the National Assembly for not giving express approval to real time transmission of elections results.
To this end, the group is calling on all civil society organisations in the country to mobilise and push for a better Electoral Reform in the country.
This was contained in a press statement titled, “Defence For Human Rights and Democracy Demands Real Time Election Transmission of Result”, a copy of which was made available to newsmen in Port Harcourt.
The group described the refusal of compulsory real time transmission of result results by the Senate as undemocratic, adding that the situation will give room for election manipulation, rigging and voters apathy.
It said that the provision of mandatory real time transmission of election results would have significant improvement on the nation’s democracy.
According to the statement, “Since the return of democracy in 1999 to date, it is 27 years, so our Democracy has metamorphosed from being nascent and as such significant improvement should have been recorded.
“Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), is really disappointed at the National Assembly, especially the upper chamber (Senate) for not approving ‘Real Time Electronic Transmission of Election Result’.
“This undemocratic act of theirs, if not tamed, will give room for election manipulation and rigging’”.
Signed by Comrade Clifford Christopher Solomon on behalf of the organisation, the statement further said, “The Defence For Human Rights and Democracy unequivocally supports real time transmission of election result”, stressing that his group will resist any act by the National Assembly to undermine the nation’s democracy.
“DHRD,unequivocally supports ‘True Democracy’, which is Government of the people, by the people and for the people.
“Therefore, anything that will crash the hope of Nigerians to Freely, Fairly and Transparently elect candidates of their choice in any given election should and will be vehemently resisted because good governance begins with leaders elected through credible process. By so doing, leaders have entered a social contract with the citizens to equitably manage their affairs and abundant resources”, the statement added.
It urged the National Assembly to revisit the issue in order to avoid civil unrest.
According to the DHRD, “To avoid civil unrest,voters apathy, election rigging and manipulation, rather to promote citizens participation, advancing our Democracy and entrenching free, fair, credible and acceptable electoral outcome, the National Assembly should amend the electoral act in a manner that will deepen our democracy and boost citizens confidence.
“On this note, The Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), is calling on all other civil society organisations (CSOs) to mobilise, organise and push for a better electoral act amendment by the National Assembly”.
By: John Bibor
-
Sports3 days ago2026 WC: Nigeria, DR Congo Awaits FIFA Verdict Today
-
Environment3 days agoOxfam, partners celebrate 5 years of climate governance programmes in Nigeria
-
Politics3 days ago
ADC, PDP, LP Missing As INEC Set For By- Elections In Rivers
-
Politics3 days ago
FG’s Economic Policies Not Working – APC Chieftain
-
Politics3 days ago2027: Diri Unveils RHA LG Coordinators, APC Congress Panel
-
Politics3 days agoReps To Meet,’Morrow Over INEC’s 2027 Election Timetable
-
Politics3 days agoGroup Continues Push For Real Time Election Results Transmission
-
Sports3 days ago
Sunderland Overcome Oxford Challenge
