Court Bars Lucky Aiyedatiwa from Seeking Another Term as Ondo Governor

A Federal High Court sitting in Akure has barred Lucky Aiyedatiwa from contesting for another term as governor of Ondo State.

Delivering judgment on Thursday, Toyin Adegoke ruled that allowing the governor to seek another four-year term would violate constitutional provisions on tenure limits.

According to the judge, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 does not permit an elected president, vice president, governor or deputy governor to remain in office for more than eight years.

She held that if Aiyedatiwa were allowed to contest and win another term, he would exceed the constitutionally permitted limit.

“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 Dec. 27, 2023, following the death of former governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, whose tenure he completed.

He was later inaugurated on Feb. 24, 2025, after winning the Nov. 16, 2024 governorship election on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The suit challenging the governor’s eligibility was filed by Akin Egbuwalo, a member of the APC in the state.

Through his counsel, Adeniyi Akintola, Egbuwalo asked the court to interpret Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution as it relates to the eligibility of the governor to seek re-election.

The defendants in the suit 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 considered only the submissions of the plaintiff and the first and second defendants because the processes filed by the third to fifth defendants were deemed abandoned after they failed to participate in the hearing of the suit.

She also dismissed the 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.

“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,” she said.

The judge therefore granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, effectively restraining Aiyedatiwa from seeking another term in office.