Court Postpones Hearing On Jonathan’s Eligibility Case To May 15

According to Ireporter Online, the Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the hearing in a suit challenging the eligibility of former President Goodluck Jonathan to contest the 2027 presidential election.

Justice Peter Lifu fixed May 15, 2026, for the next hearing after the absence of the plaintiff and his counsel in court. The court also cautioned that it may impose punitive costs should there be a repeat of such absence.

During Monday’s proceedings, counsel to Jonathan, Chris Uche (SAN), drew attention to the plaintiff’s non-appearance, noting that the matter had previously been adjourned at the plaintiff’s request. The court subsequently inquired from the registrar whether any formal communication had been submitted to explain the absence, but it was confirmed that no such correspondence was received.

The court further observed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) had not been served, despite an earlier directive issued on May 8. This raised additional procedural concerns regarding compliance with service requirements.

Jonathan’s counsel maintained his application urging the court to strike out the suit, arguing that even where issues have been joined, the court retains the authority to dismiss a matter for lack of diligent prosecution. He stressed that the plaintiff bears the responsibility of ensuring proper service of processes, particularly in a case of significant public interest involving the eligibility of a former head of state.

He further noted that court records indicated that INEC and the AGF had neither been properly served nor filed any response in the matter, and urged the court to award costs against the plaintiff for failure to attend proceedings without explanation.

Justice Lifu, however, opted to grant the plaintiff another opportunity to appear in court. The matter was subsequently adjourned to May 15, 2026, with a directive that all parties must be duly served before the next sitting. The court also stated that the issue of costs would be addressed if there is further non-compliance.