A former President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Isa Ayo Salami, yesterday, said ex-President Goodluck Jonathan is not eligible to contest the 2027 Presidential Election.

He said Jonathan cannot be the nation?s President beyond the constitutional limit of two terms of eight years.

He said if elected President, Jonathan would exceed the constitutional requirement for the office.

Salami warned that Jonathan stands the risk of being nullified by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court if he defies the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

He said Jonathan?s 2027 presidential ambition is dead on arrival by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution as altered by the Fourth Alteration Act, No 16 of 2018.

He said those encouraging Jonathan should heed the warning caveat emptor usually directed to land speculators.

Salami bared his mind in an opinion on Jonathan?s bid for the Presidency in 2027.

He said: ?It is painstakingly and dispassionately demonstrated abundantly to all and sundry that ambition of Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to contest for the office of the president for the second term in the 2027 general election is effectively and undoubtedly shot down by Sub-section (3) of Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution as altered by the Fourth Alteration Act, No 16 of 2018 which, to my mind is unassailable.

?My advice to the political class angling up in his support to heed the warning, caveat emptor usually directed to land speculators to be aware.

?In an event of his winning the election he will be conveniently removed by the Court of Appeal in an election petition to that court which removal will be undoubtedly affirmed by the Supreme Court on the ground that his total tenure would have exceeded the eight years maximum tenure.?

Salami said any alteration or amendment to the constitution has retroactive effect unlike criminal act.

He said it is trite that an amendment to an enactment relates back to the date the principal enactment (legislation it is seeking to amend) came into force.

He added: ?It seems to me, however, that the interpretation of the amendment is not strictly in contention.

?What is in issue, to my mind, is the eligibility of Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to seek the office of the president in the 2027 general election, being a person who exhausted the remainder of the term for which Umaru Musa Yar?Adua was elected president.

?It is his case that the amendment to the Constitution cannot take a retroactive effect. This argument has probably lost sight of two points of view.

?Firstly, that it is a Constitutional and not a statutory provision that is in contention. Secondly, the purported right he seeks to protect is civil and not criminal.

?It is convenient to quickly dispose of the second point of view which I consider to be a civil right. The Constitution protects criminal right against retroactive legislation. Sub-section 8 of section 36 of the Constitution provides thus ? 36-(8) No person shall be held to be guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission that did not, at the time it took place, constitute such an offence and no penalty shall be imposed for any criminal offence heavier than the penalty in force at the time the offence was committed.

?The Constitution frowns at or forbids retroactive enactment with regards to criminal act, omission and penalties and not civil or constitutional infractions.

?Moreover, it is trite that an amendment to an enactment relates back to the date the principal enactment (legislation it is seeking to amend) came into force. In other words, the date for the commencement of Fourth Alteration Act, No 16 of 2018 is the date the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria itself, came into force. See sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Interpretation Act which states thus ?

4 (1) A reference in an enactment to another enactment shall, if the other enactment has been amended, be construed as a reference to the other enactment as amended.

?Consequently, the hue and cry that there has been a retroactive legislation is most unjustifiable.

?The principles governing interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions are not usually on all fours.

?The reason being that statutes are acts of the legislature while a Constitution; the ground norms are made by a higher body. In other words statutes in Nigeria are promulgated by the National Assembly for the Federation and State Houses of Assembly for the respective States.

?The Constitution is usually made by a supreme body such as the National Assembly in conjunction with sub national assemblies. Plebiscites are, at times, required. It is inconceivable, therefore, to abrogate constitutional provision on account of unconstitutionality or as retroactively made or otherwise.? (The Nation, but headline rejigged)

Update news