Court Rules Lucky Aiyedatiwa Ineligible To Seek Re-Election In 2028

The Federal High Court sitting in Akure has ruled that Lucky Aiyedatiwa is not eligible to contest the 2028 governorship election.

In a judgment delivered on Thursday, Justice Toyin Adegoke held that the Nigerian Constitution does not allow an elected president, vice president, governor, or deputy governor to remain in office for more than eight years.

Aiyedatiwa first assumed office on 27 December 2023 after the death of former governor Rotimi Akeredolu, completing the remainder of Akeredolu’s tenure. He later took the oath of office again on 24 February 2025 after winning the governorship election held on 16 November 2024.

The legal challenge was filed in July 2025 by Akindele Egbuwalo, a member of the ruling All Progressives Congress(APC). Through his lawyer, Adeniyi Akintola, the plaintiff asked the court to interpret provisions of the Nigerian Constitution regarding whether Aiyedatiwa could seek another term.

The suit focused on Section 137(3) and Section 182(3) of the Constitution, which deal with situations where a political officeholder completes the tenure of another elected official. According to these provisions, anyone sworn in to complete another person’s term can only be elected to that office for one additional term.

The case listed several defendants, including the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Governor Aiyedatiwa himself, the APC, and the Deputy Governor Olayide Adelami.

Justice Adegoke had initially scheduled 28 January for judgment on whether the governor was eligible to run again, given that he had already been sworn in twice. However, the defendants temporarily delayed the ruling by filing an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Abuja. The appellate court later dismissed the objections and allowed the lower court to proceed with the case.

In her judgment, Justice Adegoke noted that the legal processes filed by the third to fifth defendants were considered abandoned because they failed to participate during the hearing. She therefore relied only on the submissions of the plaintiff, the first defendant, and the second defendant.

The court also rejected the objection raised by the first defendant, ruling that the suit was neither speculative nor academic but raised a legitimate constitutional question.

“If the third defendant is allowed to contest and serve another four years, that will be against the position of the law in Marwa v. Nyako, where the Supreme Court held that a President or Governor cannot serve beyond eight years,” she said.

Justice Adegoke further explained that courts have the authority to interpret constitutional provisions whenever such questions arise.

According to her, when a court is asked to interpret the Constitution, it has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter because the judiciary is itself established by law and must always uphold the Constitution.

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were valid and granted all the reliefs sought.

Before the ruling, Aiyedatiwa argued that the case was merely an academic exercise because he had not declared any intention to contest the 2028 election.

He and the other defendants had also approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja seeking to prevent the plaintiff from amending the suit that aimed to bar him from running again.

They maintained that the case was premature since INEC had not yet released the timetable for the Ondo governorship election and the governor had not formally announced plans to seek another term.

Aiyedatiwa also alleged that his constitutional right to a fair hearing had been violated.

He claimed that the trial judge acted beyond her powers and wrongly assumed jurisdiction over the case.

However, the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision delivered by a three-member panel, dismissed the appeal marked CA/ABJ/319/2025 and awarded ₦2 million in costs against the governor.

Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam ruled that the governor failed to prove that the Federal High Court in Akure denied him a fair hearing when it granted permission for the amendment of the suit.

The appellate court also found that the trial court’s decision to allow the amendment was based on proper legal principles.

It therefore upheld the Federal High Court’s earlier ruling of 24 November 2025, which permitted the amendment of the originating summons filed against the Ondo State governor.