A Federal High Court in Akure has barred Ondo State Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa from contesting for another term, ruling that doing so would violate the constitutional eight-year tenure limit.
A Federal High Court, sitting in Akure, has barred Lucky Aiyedatiwa, governor of Ondo State, from contesting for another term in office.
Delivering judgment on Thursday, Justice Toyin Adegoke ruled that allowing the governor to run again would violate the constitutional limit on tenure.
The court held that the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria does not permit an elected president, vice president, governor, or deputy governor to remain in office for more than eight years.
Justice Adegoke stated that if Aiyedatiwa were allowed to contest and win another four-year term, he would exceed the constitutionally permitted tenure.
“If the third defendant is allowed to contest and serve another four years, that will be against the position of the law as established in Marwa v. Nyako, where the Supreme Court held that a president or governor cannot serve beyond eight years,” the judge ruled.
Aiyedatiwa became governor on December 27, 2023, following the death of former governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, whose tenure he completed.
He was later sworn in again on February 24, 2025, after winning the November 16, 2024 governorship election on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The legal action was initiated by Akin Egbuwalo, a member of the APC in the state, who challenged the governor’s eligibility to contest another term.
Through his counsel, Adeniyi Akintola, SAN, the plaintiff asked the court to interpret Section 137(3) of the constitution regarding the eligibility of Aiyedatiwa to seek re-election.
Those listed as defendants in the case included the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Lateef Fagbemi, Aiyedatiwa, the APC, and the deputy governor Olayide Adelami.
Justice Adegoke noted that the court deemed the processes filed by the third to fifth defendants abandoned because they failed to participate in the hearing.
According to her, the court only considered the submissions made by the plaintiff as well as those of the first and second defendants.
The judge also dismissed an objection raised by the first defendant, ruling that the suit was neither speculative nor academic.
“This court finds that the action filed by the plaintiff discloses a valid cause of action and cannot be dismissed as speculative or academic,” she said.
She added that courts have the inherent jurisdiction to interpret provisions of the constitution whenever such interpretation is sought.
Having found merit in the plaintiff’s arguments, the court granted all the reliefs sought, effectively restraining Aiyedatiwa from seeking another term in office.
Visit GMTNewsng for more news stories.
