The legal battle seeking to stop former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election has moved to the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
Naijaonpoint reports that an Abuja-based legal practitioner, Jideobi Johnmary, has asked the appellate court to set aside the Federal High Court judgment that declared Jonathan eligible to seek a return to the presidency.
In the notice of appeal, Johnmary raised three grounds and urged the court to declare the May 26 judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu a nullity.
In his first ground of appeal, Johnmary argued that Justice Lifu “erred in law and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice” when he heard both a motion seeking his recusal and the substantive suit on May 18.
He said the judge later delivered a composite ruling on May 26, thereby breaching his constitutional right to a fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
According to him, he had filed a motion on May 11 asking Justice Lifu to recuse himself from the case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2102/2025 and return the file to the Chief Judge for reassignment.
The appeal read, “The matter came up for hearing on the 18th day of May, 2026. The appellant’s counsel drew the attention of the learned trial judge to the pendency of the motion for recusal and urged the learned trial judge to first hear and determine the motion for recusal one way or the other.
“Despite the plea of the appellant’s counsel, the learned trial judge insisted on hearing both the motion for recusal and the originating summons together in the same proceedings and adjourned for a composite judgment encompassing the ruling and the judgment.”
The appellant argued that a recusal motion concerns the judge’s impartiality and should have been determined before the substantive matter.
He said, “A motion for recusal challenges the judge’s right to even hear the case. It is an issue that goes directly to the judge’s impartiality.
“The motion for recusal having been formally filed, the learned trial judge was under a duty to first deliver a ruling dismissing the motion before he could validly take any further step in the substantive suit.
“Deciding the recusal motion simultaneously with the substantive matter defeats the entire purpose of the application.”
He further argued that the procedure adopted by the lower court denied him an impartial tribunal and rendered the proceedings a nullity.
“Hearing the substantive originating summons first on the 18th day of May, 2026, before deciding whether he could hear it on the 26th day of May, 2026, simply means that the learned trial judge put the cart before the horse,” the appellant said.
In his second ground of appeal, Johnmary insisted that Justice Lifu erred in law by hearing and determining the substantive suit despite the pending motion challenging his competence and impartiality.
He argued, “A motion for recusal challenges the core jurisdictional competence of the presiding judge.
“The lower court was duty-bound to determine the issue of recusal as a preliminary threshold point before taking any further steps in the substantive matter.
“By fusing the preliminary challenge with the substantive merits, the learned trial judge acted without jurisdiction, making the final orders void ab initio.”
The appellant also challenged the ₦20m cost awarded against him in favour of Jonathan. He described the cost as punitive, excessive and wrongly imposed.
The appeal read, “The learned trial judge penalised the appellant for exercising his constitutional right to fair hearing and access to court by fully ventilating his response to the respondent’s preliminary objection.
“The award of ₦20,000,000.00 in costs is highly excessive, punitive, and unprecedented for an interlocutory or final contest, and is completely divorced from the actual, reasonable expenses incurred by the respondent.
“The lower court failed to act judicially and judiciously, as costs are meant to be compensatory for expenses incurred, not a fine or weapon of oppression to punish a litigant for presenting an argument before the court.”
Johnmary is asking the Court of Appeal to remit the substantive suit to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge for a fresh hearing.
Jonathan, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation are listed as respondents in the appeal.
The Court of Appeal has yet to fix a date for the hearing.
