Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja has criticised plaintiff Johnmary Jideobi and his lawyer, 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 repeated delays caused by the plaintiff and his counsel as unacceptable and imposed a N1m fine on Jideobi in favour of the former president.
Justice Lifu noted that although the suit was filed 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, six months later.
He also observed that counsel to the former president, Chris Uche (SAN), informed the court on May 8 that his client only became aware of the suit through media reports before proceeding to file and serve the necessary processes.
The judge further recalled that neither Jideobi, who is also a lawyer, nor Ukpai appeared in court on May 11 despite the hearing being fixed for 2pm at the request of the plaintiff’s counsel.
Although Uche requested N5m in costs against the plaintiff, the court declined the application in the interest of fair hearing.
When the matter was called on Friday, only counsel to the former president and the lawyer representing the Attorney-General of the Federation, J.D. Esho, were present in court.
Justice Lifu directed the court registrar to verify whether hearing notices had been served on the plaintiff and INEC, which the registrar confirmed.
Uche subsequently urged the court to dismiss the suit with substantial costs, citing the plaintiff’s repeated absence and failure to communicate with either the court or the defence team.
According to him, the conduct of the plaintiff and his lawyer showed disrespect to the court and an attempt to hold both the judiciary and defendants to ransom.
He argued that despite learning about the case through media reports, the former president had filed all relevant processes, including a preliminary objection, and duly served the plaintiff.
“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 added that there should be consequences for such actions and urged the court to protect its dignity by invoking disciplinary powers against the plaintiff.
Counsel to the Attorney-General of the Federation told the court that her office had only received the former president’s response to the suit on May 11 and had yet to be served with the plaintiff’s originating summons.
The registrar also confirmed that although INEC received a hearing notice for Friday’s sitting, the commission had not been served with the originating process.
During proceedings, Ukpai later entered the courtroom and apologised for arriving late, explaining that his vehicle broke down on the way to court.
After hearing submissions from all parties, Justice Lifu adjourned the matter until May 18 for hearing of all pending applications and the substantive suit.