Amid growing calls for former President Goodluck Jonathan to contest the 2027 presidential election, constitutional lawyer Kayode Oladele has argued that no amount of political consultation can override constitutional provisions that already bar such a possibility.
Jonathan’s recent statement that he would “consult widely” before deciding whether to respond to mounting appeals from some Nigerian youths for a return to presidential politics has reignited public debate over his eligibility.
However, Oladele maintained that while political consultation is legitimate, constitutional qualification remains a strictly legal issue. According to him, the Constitution has already settled the matter.
“The excitement surrounding Jonathan’s possible return may be emotionally appealing to some people, especially those who remember him with nostalgia, but constitutional democracy cannot operate on sentiment, public pressure, or political longing,” Oladele said.
“The decisive issue is not whether Jonathan is popular, experienced, or nationally acceptable, but whether the Constitution permits him to contest again. The answer is emphatic: it does not.”
Oladele explained that eligibility for office is determined solely by constitutional provisions and not by political endorsements or public sympathy.
He based his position on Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution, introduced through the Fourth Alteration Act No. 16 of 2018. The provision states that any person who assumes the office of president to complete another president’s tenure cannot thereafter be elected to the office more than once.
According to him, the amendment was deliberately introduced to prevent successors who inherit office midterm from extending their stay in power beyond the spirit of the constitutional two-term limit.
Before the amendment, he noted, the Constitution prohibited anyone from being elected president more than twice, but failed to adequately address situations where a vice president assumes office following the death or exit of a sitting president.
“This omission created the possibility that an unelected successor could potentially remain in office for close to a decade, thereby undermining the spirit of the two-term principle. The amendment was a corrective constitutional intervention,” he stated.
Oladele argued that Jonathan’s succession to power in May 2010 following the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua clearly places him within the category contemplated by Section 137(3).
By completing Yar’Adua’s tenure from 2010 to 2011 and subsequently winning the 2011 presidential election, Oladele said Jonathan had already exhausted the single additional electoral opportunity permitted under the Constitution.
“Former President Jonathan is not being singled out unfairly. He simply happens to be the most prominent real-world example of the constitutional scenario the amendment sought to regulate,” he added.
The lawyer also dismissed claims by some supporters that applying the 2018 amendment to Jonathan would amount to retroactive legislation.
According to him, the constitutional provision does not invalidate Jonathan’s previous service or punish him for past actions, but merely defines future eligibility requirements.
“The Constitution is not punishing Jonathan for having served. It is simply saying that going forward, anyone who has completed another president’s tenure and then secured one elected term has exhausted the constitutional allowance,” he explained.
Oladele further cited judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s position in tenure-related cases such as PDP v. Sylva, arguing that constitutional term limits are structural safeguards necessary for democratic stability.
He stressed that term limits protect against tenure elongation, preserve political balance, and reinforce public confidence in democratic governance.
“Our democracy is strengthened not when powerful individuals test the edges of constitutional silence, but when the nation respects the discipline of constitutional clarity,” he said.
He also compared Nigeria’s constitutional framework with the United States’ Twenty-Second Amendment, which limits presidential tenure and prevents successors from converting extraordinary entry into prolonged control of executive power.
Oladele warned political parties against drafting Jonathan for the 2027 race despite what he described as obvious constitutional hurdles, saying such a move could trigger legal disputes and political uncertainty.
“Political parties must distinguish between emotional mobilization and constitutional viability. A candidacy that begins under a cloud of constitutional disqualification is a dangerous gamble,” he cautioned.
While acknowledging Jonathan’s status as a respected statesman with every right to contribute to national discourse and political consultation, Oladele insisted that influence does not automatically translate into eligibility for office.
“Former President Jonathan remains free to consult, to speak, to lead conversations, and to shape national debate, but consultation is not candidacy, and influence is not eligibility,” he said.
He concluded that although public debate over Jonathan’s possible return may continue politically, the constitutional position remains clear.
“The Constitution anticipated this very scenario and addressed it. So while consultation may keep the political conversation alive, constitutional law has already drawn the line. Nigeria’s democracy can only mature when constitutional boundaries are respected — not only when convenient, but especially when inconvenient,” he stated.
In this article