Jonathan Not Eligible to Contest in 2027 — Justice Salami Declares
Former President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Isa Ayo Salami, has declared that ex-President Goodluck Jonathan is constitutionally barred from contesting the 2027 presidential election, SAVANNAH NEWSNOW REPORTS.
According to Justice Salami, Jonathan has already reached the constitutional limit of two presidential terms a total of eight years and any attempt to return to the office would violate the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
He warned that even if Jonathan were to win the 2027 election, his victory would inevitably be nullified by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, as it would exceed the maximum tenure permitted by law.
Salami made the declaration in a legal opinion addressing Jonathan’s reported presidential ambition, stressing that his eligibility had already been extinguished by Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution as amended by the Fourth Alteration Act No. 16 of 2018.
“It has been painstakingly and dispassionately demonstrated that the ambition of Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to contest for the office of President in the 2027 general election is effectively and unambiguously foreclosed by the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution as altered by the Fourth Alteration Act No. 16 of 2018,” Justice Salami stated.
“My advice to the political class supporting him is to heed the popular warning caveat emptor usually directed to land speculators. Should he win the election, the Court of Appeal would be bound to remove him, and such removal would unquestionably be affirmed by the Supreme Court on the ground that his cumulative tenure exceeds the constitutional limit of eight years.”
Justice Salami further explained that any constitutional amendment has a retroactive effect, unlike criminal laws. He clarified that an amendment to a constitutional provision takes effect from the date the original enactment came into force in this case, the 1999 Constitution.
He emphasized that Jonathan’s argument against retroactive application is unfounded because the restriction in question concerns a civil and constitutional matter, not a criminal one.
“The Constitution forbids retroactive legislation only in matters relating to criminal offences and penalties,” he said, citing Section 36(8) of the Constitution which prohibits punishing individuals for acts that were not offences at the time they were committed.
“However, this protection does not extend to civil or constitutional matters such as eligibility for office.”
Justice Salami also drew attention to Section 4(1) of the Interpretation Act, which states that any reference to an amended enactment must be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended. He said this principle reinforces the position that the 2018 alteration applies to the 1999 Constitution as though it had been part of it from inception.
He concluded that it is “most unjustifiable” to argue that the 2018 amendment constitutes retroactive legislation, noting that constitutional amendments differ fundamentally from ordinary statutes because they emanate from a superior legal authority.
“While statutes are enacted by the legislature, a constitution is the product of a higher sovereign process,” he explained. “It is, therefore, inconceivable to nullify or disregard a constitutional provision on the basis of retroactivity. The amendment stands valid and binding.”
