By Judicial Correspondent
A major constitutional controversy has emerged in Ondo State after the Federal High Court sitting in Akure ruled that Governor Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa cannot contest the 2028 Ondo governorship election, citing Nigeria’s constitutional limit on the tenure of governors.
The judgement, delivered on Thursday by Justice Toyin Adegoke, followed a suit seeking judicial interpretation of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria regarding whether Aiyedatiwa is eligible to seek another term after completing the tenure of his predecessor and winning a fresh election.
The ruling has triggered fresh debate around Ondo governorship tenure limits, constitutional interpretation, and the eligibility of deputy governors who complete their principals’ terms.
APC Chieftain Files Suit on Ondo Governorship Eligibility
The suit was filed by Akin Egbuwalo, a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Ondo State, who asked the court to interpret Section 137(3) of the Nigerian Constitution in relation to the eligibility of Governor Aiyedatiwa and his deputy, Olayide Adelami, to contest another governorship election.
The defendants in the suit included: the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Governor Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, Deputy Governor Olayide Adelami, and the All Progressives Congress.
Court Cites Eight-Year Constitutional Limit for Governors
In the judgement, the court held that Aiyedatiwa would not be eligible to contest the 2028 governorship election in Ondo State, having already assumed office earlier to complete the tenure of the late governor, Rotimi Akeredolu.
Aiyedatiwa was sworn in as governor on December 27, 2023 after Akeredolu’s death and later contested and won the November 16, 2024 Ondo State governorship election. He was subsequently inaugurated for a new term on February 24, 2025.
The court rules that allowing him to contest again in 2028 would breach the constitutional provision that limits Nigerian governors to a maximum tenure of eight years.
Justice Adegoke cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in Marwa v. Nyako.
“If the third defendant is allowed to contest and serve another four years, that will be against the position of the law in Marwa versus Nyako, where the Supreme Court held that a president or governor cannot serve beyond eight years,” the court ruled.
The court therefore held that the plaintiff’s case had merit and granted all the reliefs sought.
Court Says Some Defendants Abandoned Their Defence
The Federal High Court also ruled that legal processes filed by the third to fifth defendants were deemed abandoned because they failed to participate in the hearing of the suit.
As a result, the court considered only the submissions made by the plaintiff and the first and second defendants in determining the case.
Appeal Court Earlier Dismissed Aiyedatiwa’s Challenge
The Court of Appeal of Nigeria sitting in Abuja had earlier dismissed an appeal filed by Governor Aiyedatiwa challenging an earlier ruling of the Akure Federal High Court in the same case.
In a unanimous judgement delivered by a three-member panel led by Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam, the appellate court ruled that the trial court acted properly when it allowed the plaintiff to amend his originating summons.
The court held that Aiyedatiwa failed to prove that the decision caused a miscarriage of justice or violated his right to fair hearing.
Legal Experts Predict Possible Supreme Court Showdown
The ruling has intensified debate among constitutional lawyers and political analysts about the legal implications of completing a predecessor’s tenure and subsequently winning an election.
Many observers believe the matter may eventually reach the Supreme Court of Nigeria for a final interpretation, which could establish a national precedent on governorship tenure limits and constitutional eligibility for re-election in Nigeria.
