The Akure Division of the Federal High Court in Ondo State has ruled that the incumbent governor, Lucky Aiyedatiwa, cannot contest the state’s governorship election in 2028, declaring that doing so would breach the constitutional limit of eight years in office for elected executives.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Toyin Bolaji Adegoke held that allowing the governor to seek another term in 2028 would conflict with provisions of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, which sets a maximum tenure of eight years for the offices of president, vice president, governor and deputy governor.
The ruling followed legal arguments concerning the constitutional implications of Aiyedatiwa’s succession to office and his subsequent electoral victory after completing part of his predecessor’s tenure.
Aiyedatiwa first assumed office as governor on December 27, 2023, following the death of the former governor, Rotimi Akeredolu, who passed away while still in office. As deputy governor at the time, Aiyedatiwa was sworn in to complete the remainder of Akeredolu’s tenure in accordance with constitutional provisions governing succession.
After completing the unexpired tenure of his predecessor, Aiyedatiwa later contested and won the governorship election held on November 16, 2024, securing a fresh mandate from voters in the state. He was subsequently inaugurated on February 24 the following year to begin a new term as governor.
However, the court ruled that the time already spent in office completing Akeredolu’s tenure must be counted in calculating the total number of years he can constitutionally remain in power.
Justice Adegoke explained that Nigeria’s constitution clearly stipulates that no individual elected to the executive offices covered by the law can hold power beyond eight years in total.
The judge said permitting Aiyedatiwa to contest the 2028 governorship election would effectively allow him to remain in office for more than the maximum period permitted by the constitution.
According to the court, such a situation would contradict the intention of the constitutional framers, who established the eight-year cap to prevent prolonged occupancy of executive offices and to promote democratic rotation of power.
In reaching the decision, Justice Adegoke relied heavily on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Marwa v. Nyako.
That landmark judgment clarified that elected executive office holders cannot remain in office for more than eight years under any circumstances, regardless of political or administrative developments during their tenure.
The Supreme Court ruling arose from disputes involving several governors who had remained in office beyond eight years due to court-ordered rerun elections and other legal complications. The apex court ultimately ruled that constitutional tenure limits must remain strictly enforced.
Applying that precedent, the Federal High Court concluded that Aiyedatiwa’s combined tenure—beginning from the time he took over the governorship in December 2023 and extending through his current term—means that contesting again in 2028 would exceed the constitutional ceiling.
Legal analysts say the ruling highlights the ongoing relevance of constitutional interpretation in Nigeria’s political system, particularly in cases involving succession, election cycles and tenure limits.
The judgment may also have significant political implications for Ondo State ahead of the next governorship election cycle, as it clarifies the eligibility boundaries for the incumbent governor.
Observers note that disputes over tenure calculations have occurred in several Nigerian states in the past, often arising when deputy governors succeed deceased or impeached governors and later seek full mandates through elections.
With the court’s decision now on record, attention may shift to whether the ruling will be challenged at a higher court or accepted as the final interpretation of the constitutional provisions governing the governor’s tenure.
For now, the judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in interpreting Nigeria’s constitutional limits and ensuring that democratic offices operate within clearly defined legal boundaries.
