As political speculation swirls ahead of the 2027 presidential race, the TIMES NIGERIA has examined the legal backdrop to one of the most hotly debated questions: can former President Goodluck Jonathan run again?
The debate centres on the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration, No. 16) Act, 2017, which inserted Section 137(3) to bar anyone who has completed another president’s term from being elected more than once.
Jonathan assumed office in 2010 following the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, before winning the 2011 election, raising questions over whether this clause catches him.
However, in May 2022, the Federal High Court in Yenagoa ruled that the amendment could not be applied retroactively, effectively clearing the way for his eligibility.
The court’s judgment, delivered by Justice Isa Hamma Dashen, held that Jonathan’s first term, served before the 2017 amendment, could not disqualify him under the new law.
- FALSE CLAIMS? Good Governance Advocates Defend Hon. Usman Kamfani – “He Did Not Accuse the House of Collecting ₦1–₦3m”
- Jigawa ranks best on fastest growing of IGR in North
- NASSI lauds Gov Namadi for supporting 600 women Tom Brown Producers
- Prime Initiatives urges CSOs to promotes poor’s needs in Budget
- Five Men In Dock Over Owo Church Massacre That Left 50 Worshippers Dead
Critics argue the spirit of the amendment was to limit extended presidential tenure, while supporters of the ruling insist the law cannot punish actions taken before its existence.
No appeal has overturned the decision, meaning it remains binding in law.
This legal reality leaves Jonathan – at least for now – constitutionally eligible to contest, should he choose to do so.
Yet the ruling has not quieted public argument, as opponents question whether the drafters’ intent has been undermined.
The 2017 amendment was hailed at the time as a safeguard against extended incumbency, but its non-retroactive interpretation has created a political grey zone.
For many Nigerians, the matter is less about legal technicalities and more about political morality.
With the court’s position on record and no higher judicial intervention, the constitutional framework appears settled, though the political storm it fuels is anything but.
Whether Jonathan will step into that storm remains to be seen, but the law, as it stands, seems to have left the door ajar.
