The hoopla over the eligibility of former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to contest the coming presidential election has become a matter of serious debate following the recent alignments in the political landscape ahead of the 2027 general election.
The call for the former President to lace his boots for a return to Aso Rock is not far from the search for a formidable candidate who can appeal to the new feelings of Nigerians to stop the present administration from continuing.
A similar contention has also settled on the current Ondo State political space, albeit, prematurely, questioning the eligibility of Governor Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, to run after the expiration of his tenure in 2028.
While these questions have received divergent views and reviews, it will be salutary to here regurgitate the opinion of a talented and prolific lawyer and media personality, who attempted to shed light into the current maze of public opinion on the matter.
Please enjoy reading:
The Eligibility of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa’s Re-election: A Legal Analysis on Section 137(3) and 182(3) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria
By Semiloore Akinsulure
There has been a growing debate on the internet space for sometime now as to the possibility of having the incumbent Governor of Ondo State contest for another term after he was sworn-in to finish the unexpired term of the late Gov. Rotimi Akeredolu in 2023, the immediate past governor of the state, before being elected as governor in the last gubernatorial election in Ondo State. This has sparked up legal debate, with some arguing that the governor should be able to contest since Former President Goodluck Jonathan was able to contest the 2015 presidential election in Nigeria, after he was also sworn-in to finish the unexpired tenure of the late President Umaru Musa Yaradua. There are also some people who hold a distinctive perspective that the governor can no longer contest for another term again as there will be no legal shield for such aspiration.
Against this backdrop, it’s important to interrogate the face of the entire situation through the eyes of the law. Basically, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria allowed for a deputy governor or Vice president to run for two terms even after being sworn-in to complete the unexpired tenure of his principal, who might have been taken away either by the cold hands of death, or impeached, or by the reason of being completely incapacitated to continue to function as governor or president. This provision was found in Section 137 (1)(b) and 182(1)(b) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria. However, the narrative changed completely in 2018, after the Constitution was altered by the National Assembly.
The late President Muhammadu Buhari assented to the Fourth Alteration Act, incorporating sub-section 3 to both Sections 137 and 182, impacting qualification for presidential and governorship positions. This alteration featured a commencement date that indicates the date it was signed into law. The direct implication of this alteration is that a deputy governor or Vice President who assumed power from the unfinished residue of office of a deceased governor or president, can not be eligible to be further elected twice as the principal flag-bearer for the same position.
Gov. Lucky Aiyedatiwa came into office as the governor of Ondo State, after the death of Gov. Rotimi Akeredolu, SAN. He later contested and won the last gubernatorial election. He was sworn-in as governor on the 24th of February, 2025, thereby exercising his right to run for a single term of his own merit, as provided for in Section 182(3) of the Constitution. The section provides that: “A person, who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as Governor, shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.” The incumbent governor of Ondo State is by the reasoning of this section totally ineligible to once again contest for another term.
The wordings of that section is very clear and can’t be twisted, and it’s important we do not impose interpretation that does not exist to it. It’s a matter of common knowledge that words contribute to signs that man make use of in the declaration of their intention, and when the words of a man express his meaning plainly and perfectly, there is no occasion to have recourse to any other means of interpretation. Both section 137(3) and 182(3) are clear and unambiguous and they ought to be given their plain and simple meaning as the sections speak for themselves and they succinctly demonstrate the intention of the draftsmen of the Constitution, which is to disallow a deputy governor or Vice president who inherited unexpired tenure to potentially stay in office as governor or president for up to twelve (12) years. The court has held in legions of instances that where the words of the Constitution are clear and unambiguous, there is no further need to give them any other meaning than their ordinary natural and grammatical meaning. See; PDP v. OKOROCHA (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 626) 449 at 485 – 486; ANPP v. GONI (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 623) 1821 at 1850 – 1851.
However, that of Former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan takes a different narrative and can’t be a subject of the same interpretation, because they do not align circumstantially with the situation of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa. After the death of President Yar’Adua on May 5, 2010, Jonathan who was the Vice President was sworn-in as president to finish the unexpired residue of office. After the expiration of that tenure, he became the president through a general election in 2011 and contested again in 2015 but lost to the late President Buhari. Interestingly, his biggest rival who defeated him in 2015 was the one that signed the Forth Alteration Act into law in 2018 which apparently featured sub-section 3 that was added to section 137 of the Constitution. It will never appeal well to logic that the late president Buhari will assent to a law that will eventually deprive his biggest opponent in the previous election, who is still eligible under the law to challenge him in his bid for re-election. That would have amounted to a kangaroo law which would be totally inimical to the thrust of fairness.
Again, it’s important to note that the commencement date in the 2018 Forth Alteration Act clearly shows that it takes effect on the 7th of June, 2018 and not before Jonathan took his first oath after finishing the unexpired residue of office of his late principal. It’s a valid canon of statutory interpretation that an amendment takes effect from the commencement date of the original or amended statute, unless the lawmaker states otherwise – Provost Lagos State College of Education & Ors V. Edun & Ors (2004) LPELR-2929 (SC) 27, F. Similarly, the intention of the lawmaker can not be to give the Constitution a retroactive effect in this particular instance, because law is meant to be progressive and not otherwise. In the case of ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION VS. ALL NIGERIA PEOPLES PARTY (ANPP) (2003) 15 NWLR (PART 844) 614 R.6, the Court held that a constitution, like other statutes operates prospectively and not retrospectively unless it is expressly provided to be otherwise. Former President Goodluck Jonathan can still contest for the presidential election in 2027, if he chooses to, as the effect of that provision in Section 137(3) can not apply to him yet, until he contest for one more term. This is different from that of Governor Aiyedatiwa who I believe had the knowledge of this disqualification factor before deciding to inherit the unexpired term of his late boss. The governor is already constrained by section 182(3) of the Constitution, and can not benefit from what the law did not prescribe when he made the decision to succeed his boss.
Semiloore Akinsulure, is a Writer, Law Graduate and a Media Personality.
semiloreakinsulure@gmail.com