A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Jibrin Okutepa, has argued that former President Goodluck Jonathan would be unconstitutional to contest and win the 2027 presidential election. The 1999 Constitution limits a president to a maximum of eight years in office. Jonathan has already served six years: two years after succeeding the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and four years following his election in 2011. If he were to win in 2027 and serve another four‑year term, his total tenure would reach ten years, exceeding the constitutional limit.
Okutepa cited the Supreme Court’s decision in *Marwa v. Nyarko*, which affirmed that no individual may occupy the office of governor or president for more than two four‑year terms under the 1999 Constitution. He also referenced the Fourth Alteration Act of 2018, which stipulates that anyone sworn in to complete another president’s tenure may be elected for only one additional term. Since Jonathan completed Yar’Adua’s term and was subsequently elected for a single full term, Okutepa contends he is ineligible to run again.
The Senior Advocate’s position is rooted in a 2013 article in which he questioned Jonathan’s eligibility to seek re‑election in 2015. He maintains that both the Supreme Court ruling and the Fourth Alteration Act clearly delineate the constitutional provisions governing presidential terms. Okutepa’s stance underscores the importance of adhering to the constitutional framework and achieving clarity in interpreting Nigeria’s laws.
Presidential term limits have long been a contentious issue in Nigeria, with various interpretations and court rulings shaping the debate. As the country approaches the 2027 presidential election, Jonathan’s eligibility is likely to remain a focal point of discussion, and Okutepa’s arguments provide a crucial perspective on upholding the rule of law in the electoral process.
Comments are closed for this story.