A Federal High Court sitting in Akure, the capital of Ondo State, rules that Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa cannot seek another term in office, citing constitutional limits on the number of years a governor can serve.
The court decision follows a legal challenge that questions whether the governor remains eligible to contest for another term after completing the tenure of his late predecessor and subsequently winning a fresh election.
According to Mediaplusng.com, the judgment is delivered by Justice Toyin Bolaji Adegoke, who states that the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, does not allow an elected President, Vice President, Governor, or Deputy Governor to remain in office for more than eight years.
The court explains that constitutional provisions governing tenure limits must be strictly interpreted to prevent any political office holder from exceeding the maximum period allowed by law.
Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa first assumes office on December 27, 2024, following the death of the former governor, Oluwarotimi Akeredolu.
According to Mediaplusng.com, Aiyedatiwa later takes the oath of office again on February 24, 2025, after winning the November 16, 2024 governorship election in Ondo State.
The legal dispute emerges after a member of the All Progressives Congress in the state, Dr. Akin Egbuwalo, files a suit challenging the governor’s eligibility to seek another term in office.
The plaintiff names several defendants in the case, including Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa, Deputy Governor Dr. Olayide Adelami, the All Progressives Congress, the Independent National Electoral Commission, and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.
Dr. Egbuwalo, through his legal counsel, Chief Adeniyi Akintola, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, requests the court to interpret Section 137 subsection 3 of the 1999 Constitution regarding the eligibility of the governor to contest for another term.
The legal argument centers on the constitutional provision that limits the tenure of elected executive officials in Nigeria.
According to Mediaplusng.com, the court reviews submissions from the parties involved before reaching its decision on the matter.
Justice Adegoke rules that only the legal processes filed by the plaintiff and the first and second defendants will be considered during the proceedings.
The judge explains that the legal submissions from the third to fifth defendants are deemed abandoned after they fail to participate during the hearing of the case.
During the proceedings, the court also addresses objections raised by some of the defendants who argue that the lawsuit is speculative and lacks merit.
However, the court dismisses the objection, ruling that the case raises a valid constitutional question that requires judicial interpretation.
Justice Adegoke states that the suit is neither academic nor hypothetical but presents a legitimate legal issue concerning constitutional tenure limits.
The court further references a previous ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Marwa versus Nyako.
In that judgment, the apex court clarifies that elected governors and presidents cannot remain in office beyond a maximum period of eight years.
The Federal High Court states that allowing the governor to contest for another four-year term could potentially result in a tenure exceeding the constitutional limit.
The judge therefore concludes that the plaintiff’s argument has merit and grants the reliefs sought in the lawsuit.
Legal analysts say the ruling highlights the importance of constitutional interpretation in Nigeria’s democratic system.
They note that the judiciary often plays a crucial role in resolving disputes related to elections, tenure limits, and eligibility of political office holders.
Experts also explain that constitutional provisions governing term limits are designed to protect democratic principles by preventing prolonged concentration of power.
Such limits ensure leadership rotation and encourage accountability within political institutions.
The ruling has already generated discussions within political circles in Ondo State and across Nigeria.
Political observers say the decision could have implications for future electoral contests and constitutional debates regarding tenure limits.
According to Mediaplusng.com, the judgment underscores the judiciary’s responsibility in interpreting constitutional provisions that guide Nigeria’s democratic governance.
Legal experts say the case may still be subject to further legal processes, including possible appeals by affected parties.
For now, the ruling stands as the current legal interpretation of the governor’s eligibility to contest for another term under the circumstances presented before the court.
Observers say the outcome also highlights the importance of constitutional clarity in political transitions.
As the political landscape in Ondo State continues to evolve, stakeholders are closely watching developments surrounding the case and any potential legal actions that may follow.
For many citizens, the case represents another example of how the courts remain central to resolving constitutional questions in Nigeria’s democratic system.
Ultimately, the judgment reinforces the principle that constitutional provisions must guide the actions of elected officials and ensure that democratic governance operates within the framework of the law.
