Federal High Court Stops Ondo Governor, Aiyedatiwa’s Reelection Bid

Fidelis David in Akure

A Federal High Court sitting in Akure, the Ondo State capital, has restrained Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa of the state from seeking another term in office, ruling that allowing him to contest again would violate the constitutional limit on tenure.

Delivering judgment in Aiyedatiwa’s case yesterday, Justice Toyin Bolaji Adegoke, held that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria did not permit an elected president, vice-president, governor, or deputy governor to remain in office for more than eight years.

The court declared that if Aiyedatiwa were allowed to contest and won another term, he would exceed the maximum constitutional limit.

Justice Adegoke said: “If the third defendant is allowed to contest and serve another four years, that would be against the position of the law as established in Marwa v. Nyako, where the Supreme Court held that a president or governor could not serve beyond eight years.”

Aiyedatiwa first assumed office on December 27, 2024, 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), defeating Agboola Ajayi of the PDP.

The legal battle was initiated by an APC member, Akin Egbuwalo, who challenged the governor’s eligibility to contest another term in office.

Through his counsel, Adeniyi Akintola, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), the plaintiff asked the court to interpret Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution as it relates to the qualification of Aiyedatiwa to seek re-election.

Those listed as defendants in the suit included the Independent National Electoral Commission, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Governor Aiyedatiwa, the APC, and the deputy governor, Olayide Adelami.

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 that, “This court finds that the action filed by the plaintiff discloses a valid cause of action and cannot be dismissed as speculative or academic.”

The court also emphasised that it possessed the inherent jurisdiction to interpret provisions of the Constitution whenever such interpretation was sought.

Adegoke added: “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.”

Having found merit in the arguments presented by the plaintiff, the court granted all the reliefs sought in the suit, effectively restraining the governor from seeking another term in office.