The Akure Division of the Federal High Court on Thursday barred Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa of Ondo State from seeking re-election.
The court ruled that allowing Governor Aiyedatiwa to contest again would go contrary to the constitutional provision on tenure.
Justice Toyin Adegoke, in her judgment, said Nigeria’s Constitution does not permit an elected president, vice president, governor, or deputy governor to remain in office for more than eight years.
She declared that by allowing Aiyedatiwa to contest and win another term, he would exceed the maximum constitutional limit.
She held: “If the third defendant (Aiyedatiwa) is allowed to contest and serve another four years, that will be against the position of the law as established in Marwa versus Nyako, where the Supreme Court held that a president or governor cannot serve beyond eight years.”
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Aiyedatiwa became governor on December 27, 2023 after the death of former Governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, whose tenure he completed.
He was inaugurated on February 24, 2025 after winning the November 16, 2024 governorship election on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
NAN also reports that Akin Egbuwalo, a member of APC in the state, initiated the legal battle, challenging the governor’s eligibility to contest another term in office.
Egbuwalo, through his counsel, Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), asked the court to interpret Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution as it relates to the eligibility of Aiyedatiwa to seek re-election.
He listed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Lateef Fagbemi (SAN); Aiyedatiwa; APC; and the deputy governor, Olayide Adelami, as defendants.
Justice Adegoke noted in her judgment that the processes filed by the third to fifth defendants were deemed abandoned because they failed to participate in the hearing of the suit.
According to her, only the submissions of the plaintiff and the first and second defendants were considered.
The judge subsequently dismissed the objection raised by the first defendant, ruling that the suit was neither speculative nor academic.
She held: “This court finds that the action filed by the plaintiff discloses a valid cause of action and cannot be dismissed as speculative or academic.
“Whenever a court is invited to interpret any provision of the Constitution, the court has the inherent jurisdiction to hear and determine such a matter because the court itself is a creation of law and must uphold the Constitution at all times.
“This court possesses the inherent jurisdiction to interpret provisions of the constitution whenever such interpretation is sought.
“Having found merit in the arguments presented by the plaintiff, the court granted all the reliefs sought in the suit, effectively restraining the third defendant from seeking another term in office.”
