Eligibility: Court bars Aiyedatiwa from seeking re-election
The Federal High Court sitting in Akure, the Ondo State capital has restrained Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa from seeking another term in office.
The court presided by Justice Toyin Bolaji Adegoke in a judgment delivered on Thursday 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.
Aiyedatiwa who was sworn in to complete the tenure of Late Governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu on December 27, 2024, was again sworn in again on February 24, 2025, as governor when he defeated Hon Agboola Ajayi, the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the November 16, 2024 governorship election.
However, a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Dr. Akin Egbuwalo has dragged the governor, his Deputy, Dr. Olayide Adelami, and the ruling party to court over the eligibility of Aiyedatiwa to contest for another term in office.
Egbuwalo through his counsel, Chief Adeniyi Akintola SAN sought the interpretation of the section
Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution regarding the qualifications of Governor Aiyedatiwa to contest for a second term in office.
The suit filed by Egbuwalo has 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.
Justice Adegoke had initially fixed January 28 to decide whether Aiyedatiwa is qualified to re-contest having been sworn in twice as governor of the state. The defendants however arrested the judgment until the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja gave a leeway for the delivery of the judgment.
In her verdict, 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 held that the suit was not speculative and academic as argued by the first and second defendants but disclosed a cause of action.
Pointedly, 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.”
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.
The court said it found merit in the case of the plaintiff and consequently granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
