The aspiration of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa of Ondo State to contest in the next governorship election in the state has been aborted.
The Federal High Court sitting in Akure, the state capital, on Thursday restrained Governor Aiyedatiwa from seeking another term in office.
Handing down the verdict, the presiding judge, Justice Toyin Bolaji Adegoke, said the 1999 constitution, as amended, did not provide for a situation where an elected President, Vice President, Governor, and Deputy would spend more than eight years in office.
It would be recalled that Aiyedatiwa, as the deputy governor of Ondo State, was sworn in as a substantive governor of the state when the late Governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu died.
Aiyedatiwa was sworn in on December 27, 2023, to complete the tenure of the late Governor Akeredolu.
Thereafter, having defeated the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Hon. Agboola Ajayi, in the November 16, 2024, governorship election in the state, he was sworn in again on February 24, 2025, as the governor of the state.
ALSO READ: Golden Jubilee: Yoruba Youth Council Celebrates Oyo, Ogun and Ondo States At 50
A Chieftain of All Progressives Congress (APC), Dr. Akindele Egbuwalo, had approached the court seeking an interpretation of Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, as to the eligibility of Governor Aiyedatiwa to contest again in the next governorship election in the state.
Dr. Akindele Egbuwalo, through his attorney, Chief Adeniyi Akintola SAN, in the suit had the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Attorney General, and the Minister of Justice, Governor Aiyedatiwa, All Progressives Congress APC, and the Deputy Governor, Dr. Olayide Adelami as defendants.
It would be recalled that Justice Adegoke had initially fixed January 28, 2026, to decide whether Aiyedatiwa is qualified to re-contest. The defendants then arrested the judgment until the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja opened a window for the lower court to deliver its judgment.
Handing down the verdict on Thursday, Justice Adegoke held that the processes of the third to fifth defendants were deemed abandoned, having failed to participate during the hearing of the suit, and that it is the only process of the plaintiff, first and second defendants, that would be considered.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the objection of the first defendant.
The court therefore held that the suit was not speculative and academic as argued by the first and second defendants, but disclosed a cause of action.
The court held that “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 Inyako where the Supreme Court held that a President or Governor cannot serve beyond eight years.”
Moreover, Justice Adegoke held that anytime the court is asked to interpret a section of the Constitution, the court has natural jurisdiction to hear and determine such a suit because the court itself is a creation of law and meant to uphold the same at all times.
Therefore, the court said it found merit in the case of the plaintiff and consequently granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
