2027: Jonathan Cannot Contest Again, Constitution Has Closed the Door — Oladele

A former Acting Chairman of the Federal Character Commission and constitutional lawyer, Kayode Oladele, has declared that former President Goodluck Jonathan is constitutionally barred from contesting the 2027 presidential election, insisting that no amount of political consultation or public pressure can override what he described as a clearly settled constitutional provision.

Oladele made the assertion in a statement issued on Sunday amid growing political discussions surrounding the possibility of Jonathan making a return to the presidential race ahead of the 2027 general election.

The debate intensified after Jonathan recently addressed youth groups in Abuja who appealed to him to contest the presidency once again. Responding to the calls, the former president acknowledged the appeals and said he would engage in broad consultations before making any political decision.

“I’ve heard you loud and clear. I will consult widely before taking any decision,” Jonathan reportedly said during the interaction.

However, Oladele argued that while political consultation is a legitimate democratic exercise, constitutional qualification remains strictly a matter of law and not public sentiment.

According to him, the legal position regarding Jonathan’s eligibility is already firmly established under the Nigerian Constitution and cannot be altered by emotional appeals, political nostalgia, or endorsements from supporters.

The former federal lawmaker stressed that the key issue is not whether Jonathan remains popular or widely accepted across the country, but whether the Constitution permits him to seek another term in office.

He stated, “At the political level, anyone can be encouraged to consult or even consider running for office, but constitutional democracy cannot be driven by emotions, popularity, or pressure from supporters. Eligibility for the office of president is determined solely by the Constitution, and in Jonathan’s case, the constitutional provisions are very clear.”

Oladele specifically referenced Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, explaining that the provision was deliberately introduced to prevent a situation where a vice president who completes the tenure of a deceased or incapacitated president could still go ahead to enjoy two additional elected terms in office.

According to him, lawmakers introduced the amendment to close what they considered a dangerous loophole in Nigeria’s presidential tenure arrangement.

He explained that before the constitutional amendment, the law only prevented any individual from being elected president more than twice, but it failed to adequately address the unique situation of a successor president inheriting office midway into another president’s tenure.

Oladele noted that the omission created the possibility of an unelected successor remaining in power for close to ten years, a development he said could undermine the spirit of Nigeria’s two-term presidential principle.

“The amendment was not inserted casually,” he said. “It was a deliberate constitutional safeguard aimed at ensuring that succession by circumstance or constitutional necessity does not become an avenue for prolonged incumbency.”

The lawyer pointed out that Jonathan’s ascension to power in May 2010 following the death of former President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua placed him squarely within the category contemplated by Section 137(3) of the Constitution.

Jonathan completed Yar’Adua’s unexpired tenure from 2010 to 2011 before contesting and winning the 2011 presidential election for a fresh four-year mandate.

In Oladele’s interpretation, by completing Yar’Adua’s tenure and subsequently winning one presidential election, Jonathan had already exhausted the single additional electoral opportunity permitted under the Constitution for a successor president.

“Former President Jonathan is not being unfairly targeted,” Oladele stated. “He simply represents the most practical example of the exact constitutional situation the amendment intended to regulate.”

The constitutional lawyer also dismissed arguments from some of Jonathan’s supporters who claim that applying the 2018 constitutional amendment to him would amount to retroactive legislation.

According to Oladele, the amendment does not punish Jonathan for actions already taken in the past, nor does it invalidate his previous tenure as president.

Instead, he argued that the law merely sets conditions for future eligibility and should therefore be interpreted prospectively rather than retrospectively.

“There is a major legal distinction between retroactively punishing past conduct and prospectively defining eligibility for future office,” he explained.

“The Constitution is not penalising Jonathan for serving as president. What it simply says is that anyone who completes another president’s tenure and later wins one election has exhausted the constitutional limit permitted under the law.”

Oladele further warned political parties against attempting to draft Jonathan into the 2027 presidential race despite what he described as obvious constitutional hurdles.

He cautioned that presenting Jonathan as a presidential candidate could expose any political platform to serious legal disputes, constitutional challenges, and possible electoral setbacks.

According to him, such a move could trigger prolonged court battles capable of distracting campaigns, creating uncertainty within the political process, and even invalidating a candidacy either before or after nomination.

The former lawmaker maintained that although public conversations surrounding Jonathan’s possible return may continue for political reasons, the legal debate itself is substantially settled.

He concluded that Nigeria’s democracy can only deepen and mature when political actors respect constitutional boundaries regardless of personal interests or political convenience.

“The Constitution anticipated this exact scenario and clearly addressed it,” Oladele said.

“So while political consultations may keep the conversation alive in the public space, constitutional law has already drawn the line. Nigeria’s democracy can only grow stronger when constitutional provisions are respected, not only when they are convenient, but also when they are inconvenient.”