The Federal High Court in Akure, Ondo State, has barred Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa from contesting the 2028 governorship election in the state.
According to the court, allowing him to seek another term would violate the constitutional limit of eight years’ tenure.
The court, presided over by Justice Toyin Bolaji Adegoke, in a judgment delivered, held that the1999 Constitution (as amended) does not provide for a situation where an elected President, Vice President, Governor, or Deputy Governor would spend more than eight years in office.
Recall that Aiyedatiwa was sworn in on December 27, 2024, to complete the tenure of the late Governor Rotimi Akeredolu.
Aiyedatiwa was later sworn in again on February 24, 2025, after defeating Hon. Agboola Ajayi, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in the November 16, 2024 governorship election.
Justice Adegoke ruled that the suit is not speculative or academic, emphasising that it has inherent jurisdiction to interpret any section of the Constitution, being a creation of law and duty-bound to uphold it at all times.
Recall that a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Dr. Akin Egbuwalo, had dragged the governor, his deputy Dr. Olayide Adelami, and the ruling party to court over the eligibility of Aiyedatiwa to contest for another term in office.
Egbuwalo, through his counsel Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), sought an interpretation of Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution regarding the qualification of Governor Aiyedatiwa to contest for a second term.
The suit filed by Egbuwalo listed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Governor Aiyedatiwa, the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the Deputy Governor, Dr. Olayide Adelami, as defendants.
Justice Adegoke had initially fixed January 28 to decide whether Aiyedatiwa was qualified to re-contest, having been sworn in twice as governor of the state.
However, the defendants stalled the judgment until the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja granted permission for its delivery.
Delivering judgement Justice Adegoke, held that the processes filed by the third to fifth defendants were deemed abandoned, having failed to participate during the hearing of the suit.
She noted that only the processes of the plaintiff, first defendant, and second defendant would be considered.
Consequently, the court dismissed the objection raised by the first defendant, ruling that the suit was neither speculative nor academic, as argued by the first and second defendants, but disclosed a valid cause of action.
The court further held that:“If the third defendant is allowed to contest and serve another four years, that will be against the position of the law in Marwa v. Nyako, where the Supreme Court held that a President or Governor cannot serve beyond eight years.”
Justice Adegoke also said that whenever a court is invited to interpret any provision of the Constitution, it has the inherent jurisdiction to hear and determine such a matter, since the court itself is a creation of law and must uphold the Constitution at all times.
She held that the plaintiff’s case had merit and consequently granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
