Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Jibrin Okutepa, has sparked debate by stating that it would be unconstitutional for former President Goodluck Jonathan to contest and win the 2027 presidential election. According to Okutepa, Jonathan has already served six years in office – two years completing the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s term and four years after winning the 2011 presidential election. If Jonathan wins in 2027 and serves a full term, Okutepa argues, he would have spent a total of ten years in office, exceeding the constitutional limit of eight years.¹\

Okutepa’s Argument

Okutepa cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Marwa vs. Nyarko, which he believes establishes that an individual cannot occupy the office of president or governor for more than two terms of four years each under the 1999 Constitution. He also references the Fourth Alteration Act of 2018, which states that a person sworn in to complete another president’s term can only be elected for one additional term.

He said, “As far back as 2013, I’ve had cause to write an article on the basis of whether or not the then president, Goodluck Jonathan was qualified to seek reelection in 2015 and my article was extensively published in Sahara Reporters.

“My argument then was based on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Marwa versus Nyarko, where the Supreme Court was emphatic that under the 1999 constitution, a person can only be elected to the office of the governor or president for two terms of office of four four years.

“Now there is no dispute that President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan was the vice president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria when, unfortunately, President Yaradua died. And he spent two years completing the tenure of office of President Umaru Musa Yaradua. Then, as of right, he got elected in his own right for a period of four years, which he spent.

“When he was seeking the reelection to contest the election for 2015 I was of the view, and I still hold that view tenaciously, that he was not qualified to run for that office on the basis of the Supreme Court decision that interpreted the provisions that a person is qualified how many years to stay in office.

“And my argument was simple, devoid of any legalistic argument rooted in legal confusion, let’s make the simple mathematics. The 1999 constitution was the Constitution under which President Umaru Yar’Adua and President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan contested the election.

“The Constitution says you cannot qualify to run for the office of the president, except you would nominate a person who is equally qualified to become president as your running mate. So President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan was nominated. He ran for the office of the presidency with President Umaru Yaradua. Unfortunately, President Yaradua died, and he took over.

“So as at today, under the 1999 constitution, President Ebele Jonathan had spent six years in office, two years as president serving the two the remainder of the tenure of the office occupied by late President Yaradua, four years in his right, making a cumulative years of six years now, if he runs for 2027 and he wins, question is, under what constitution did he run? 1999 constitution?

“How many years has he served under that constitution? Six years plus four years, making a period of 10 years. That one will be contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court that the time fixed by the constitution for tenure of office is like the rock of Gibraltar that cannot be elongated and it cannot be moved.

“Secondly, before then, and to put paint to what looks like constitutional ambiguity, the National Assembly came with the fourth alteration act. And that fourth alteration Act was passed on the seventh of June, 2018 and that is the fourth alteration act that says expressly, a person who was sworn in as President to complete a term for which another person was elected as president shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.

“So the question is- did President Goodluck Jonathan complete the tenure of office of President Yar’Adua? The answer is yes. Did he win election for another single term under the 1999 constitution? The answer is yes.”

Divergent Views

However, not all lawyers agree with Okutepa’s assessment. Some argue that Jonathan’s assumption of office after Yar’Adua’s death was a constitutional act of succession, not an elected term, and therefore shouldn’t count towards the eight-year limit. Others point out that the 2018 constitutional amendment cannot be applied retroactively to disqualify Jonathan.³

Court Ruling

In 2022, a Federal High Court in Bayelsa ruled that Jonathan is eligible to run for the presidency, citing that his assumption of office in 2010 didn’t count as an elected tenure. The court’s decision suggests that Jonathan’s eligibility remains a matter of debate, with the judiciary likely to have the final say.⁴

Conclusion

The debate over Jonathan’s eligibility highlights the complexity of Nigeria’s constitutional provisions regarding presidential terms. As the country approaches the 2027 presidential election, the question of Jonathan’s eligibility is likely to remain a contentious issue, with lawyers and politicians holding differing views.