News, Politics

Eight-Year Limit: Court Blocks Aiyedatiwa From Seeking 2028 Re-Election in On

Published by Samuel Ayomide on March 13th, 2026.

Eight-Year Limit: Court Blocks Aiyedatiwa From Seeking 2028 Re-Election in Ondo

The Federal High Court in Akure has ruled that Ondo State Governor, Lucky Aiyedatiwa, cannot contest the state’s 2028 governorship election, citing constitutional provisions that restrict a governor from serving more than eight years in office.

The decision followed a suit filed by an All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain, Dr. Akin Egbuwalo, who asked the court to interpret Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) regarding the eligibility of Aiyedatiwa and his deputy, Olayide Adelami, to seek another term in office.

Other parties joined in the suit included the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Ondo State Attorney General, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, the governor, his deputy and the APC.

Delivering judgment, Justice Toyin Adegoke held that Aiyedatiwa would be constitutionally barred from contesting the 2028 election because allowing him to serve another four-year term would exceed the maximum eight-year tenure permitted for governors under Nigerian law.

The judge noted that Aiyedatiwa first assumed office on December 27, 2023, after the death of former governor Rotimi Akeredolu, whose tenure he completed. He was later sworn in again on February 24, 2025, after winning the November 16, 2024 governorship election in the state.

Justice Adegoke relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Marwa v. Nyako, which clarified that no governor or president can legally remain in office beyond eight years, regardless of circumstances surrounding succession.

“If the defendant is allowed to contest and serve another four-year term, it would be inconsistent with the position of the law as established by the Supreme Court in Marwa v. Nyako, which clearly limits tenure to eight years,” the court ruled.

The court also held that the case was not speculative, stressing that it had the constitutional authority to interpret the law whenever issues relating to constitutional provisions were brought before it.

In the ruling, the judge further noted that the legal processes filed by some defendants—including the governor and others—were deemed abandoned because they failed to actively participate during key stages of the hearing. As a result, the court relied mainly on the submissions of the plaintiff and the relevant responses from the first and second defendants.

According to reports by The Punch and The Nation Newspaper, the court concluded that the arguments presented by the plaintiff had merit and consequently granted all the reliefs sought in the suit.

The ruling comes shortly after another legal battle involving the governor at the appellate level. As earlier reported by The Guardian Nigeria, the Court of Appeal in Abuja had dismissed an appeal filed by Aiyedatiwa challenging a previous decision of the Federal High Court in the same matter.

In the unanimous decision delivered by a three-member panel, Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam held that the trial court acted within its powers when it allowed the plaintiff to amend his originating summons in the case. The appellate court ruled that the governor failed to demonstrate that the amendment caused any miscarriage of justice or violated his right to a fair hearing.

Aiyedatiwa initially became governor following the death of Akeredolu in December 2023 and later secured a fresh mandate after winning the Ondo governorship election conducted in November 2024.

However, in an interview marking his first anniversary in office earlier this year, the governor had insisted that only the Supreme Court could stop him from seeking another term in 2028.

Following Thursday’s judgment, legal analysts say the governor still has the option of appealing the decision at a higher court if he intends to challenge the interpretation of the constitutional provisions.

The ruling is expected to further fuel debate among constitutional lawyers and political stakeholders over tenure limits for leaders who assume office mid-term due to the death or removal of their predecessors.