By Ayomide Otitoju
Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has rebuked plaintiff Johnmary Jideobi and his counsel, Ndubuisi Ukpai, over what he described as a lack of diligence in prosecuting a suit seeking to stop former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election.
The judge described the conduct of the plaintiff and his lawyer, which he said had repeatedly stalled proceedings, as “unacceptable” and awarded a N1 million cost against Jideobi in favour of the former president.
Justice Lifu expressed concern that despite filing the suit on October 6, 2025, the plaintiff had yet to serve the Independent National Electoral Commission and the Attorney-General of the Federation, listed as the second and third defendants in the matter.
The judge also noted that counsel to Jonathan, Chris Uche (SAN), informed the court on May 8 that the former president only became aware of the suit through media reports before filing and serving his response.
He further observed that neither Jideobi, who is also a lawyer, nor Ukpai appeared in court on May 11 despite fixing the hearing for 2 p.m. at the plaintiff counsel’s request.
Justice Lifu stated that although Jonathan’s lawyer requested N5 million in costs against the plaintiff, the court reduced the amount in the interest of fair hearing.
When the matter came up on Friday, neither the plaintiff nor his lawyer was initially present in court, while counsel to the former president and the Attorney-General of the Federation, J.D. Esho, were in attendance.
The court registrar confirmed that hearing notices had been served on the plaintiff and INEC.
Jonathan’s lawyer subsequently urged the court to dismiss the suit and award substantial costs against the plaintiff over his repeated absence and failure to diligently prosecute the case.
Uche argued that the plaintiff and his lawyer showed “absolute disdain and disrespect” for the court by failing to communicate reasons for their absence.
He criticised the plaintiff for dragging a former commander-in-chief before the court and allegedly abandoning the matter afterward.
“The plaintiff thinks he can hold the court and other parties to ransom and stay back in the comfort of his house and drag all of us to court,” Uche said.
He urged the court to invoke its disciplinary powers, insisting that the dignity of the court must be protected.
Counsel to the AGF, Esho, informed the court that while her office had been served with Jonathan’s response to the suit, it was yet to receive the plaintiff’s originating summons.
The registrar also confirmed that INEC had not been served with the plaintiff’s processes despite receiving notice of the hearing.
Midway into the proceedings, Ukpai entered the courtroom and apologised for arriving late, attributing the delay to a vehicle breakdown.
“My lord, I am sorry. I am for the plaintiff. Our vehicle broke down on the way,” he said.
After hearing submissions from all parties, Justice Lifu adjourned the case until May 18 for the hearing of all pending applications and the substantive suit.
