_1773387843.jpeg)
The Federal High Court sitting in Akure, Ondo State, has delivered a landmark judgment disqualifying Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa from contesting the 2028 governorship election in Ondo State. In a ruling handed down on Thursday, March 12, 2026, Justice Toyin Adegoke held that Aiyedatiwa is ineligible to seek a second term in office, having already served part of a previous term following the death of his predecessor, Rotimi Akeredolu.
The suit, filed by Dr Akin Egbuwalo, a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Ondo State, sought judicial interpretation of Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) concerning the eligibility of Aiyedatiwa and his deputy, Dr Olayide Adelami, to run for another four-year term in 2028. Named as defendants in the action were the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Ondo State Attorney General, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Governor Aiyedatiwa, Deputy Governor Adelami, and the APC.
Justice Adegoke's judgment traced Aiyedatiwa's timeline in office: he was sworn in as governor on December 27, 2023, following the death of Governor Rotimi Akeredolu to complete the remainder of that administration's term. He was then elected in his own right on November 16, 2024, and inaugurated for a fresh four-year term on February 24, 2025. The court ruled that allowing him to contest and potentially serve another four years from 2029 would result in more than eight years of total service as governor—an outcome prohibited under the Constitution.
The judge relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Marwa v. Nyako, which established that no president, vice president, governor, or deputy governor may serve beyond a cumulative eight years in office, regardless of whether the time accrued through succession, completion of a deceased predecessor's term, or direct election. Justice Adegoke declared that the 1999 Constitution makes no provision for any exception that would permit exceeding this limit.
The court rejected arguments that the suit was speculative or academic, affirming its inherent jurisdiction to interpret constitutional provisions. “The court is a creation of law and is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution at all times,” the judgment stated. It further noted that processes filed by the third to fifth defendants (Aiyedatiwa, Adelami, and the APC) were deemed abandoned due to their non-participation in the hearing, leaving only the submissions of the plaintiff and the first and second defendants (INEC and the Ondo State Attorney General) for consideration.
“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,” Justice Adegoke ruled. The court found merit in the plaintiff's case and granted all reliefs sought, effectively barring Aiyedatiwa from standing for election in 2028.
This decision follows closely on the heels of an appellate ruling. On Monday, March 9, 2026, the Court of Appeal in Abuja dismissed an appeal by Governor Aiyedatiwa challenging an earlier interlocutory ruling of the Akure Federal High Court. In that earlier stage, the trial court had granted Dr Egbuwalo's application to amend his originating summons. The three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment read by Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam, held that Aiyedatiwa failed to demonstrate that the amendment caused any miscarriage of justice or infringed his right to a fair hearing. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's exercise of discretion, clearing the path for the substantive hearing and the March 12 judgment.
The ruling has immediate political ramifications in Ondo State, where Aiyedatiwa assumed office under tragic circumstances and went on to win a full term in 2024 amid internal APC tensions and public expectations for continuity. Analysts suggest the decision could trigger a scramble within the APC for a new governorship candidate ahead of 2028, while opposition parties may seek to capitalize on any perceived instability in the ruling party.
Aiyedatiwa and his legal team are widely expected to appeal the Federal High Court verdict to the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, given the constitutional significance of the issue and the precedent set by Marwa v. Nyako. The outcome of any further appeals could reshape eligibility rules for governors who ascend through succession in Nigeria.
For now, the Akure judgment stands as a clear pronouncement that cumulative tenure limits under the 1999 Constitution are strictly enforced, with no room for extension beyond eight years even in cases of mid-term succession. The decision reinforces judicial oversight of electoral eligibility and underscores the binding nature of Supreme Court interpretations on lower courts across the federation.
