By Ayodele Oni
The Federal High Court sitting in Akure, the Ondo State, Capital, resumed hearing on the suit challenging the eligibility of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa to recontest after serving out his term with a verdict on Thursday.
The court barred Governor Aiyedatiwa from seeking another term in office as the State Governor.
Aiyedatiwa had approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the amendment of a suit seeking to bar him from contesting the 2028 governorship election, but the appellate court threw out the matter.
Justice Toyin Bolaji Adegoke in a judgment delivered on Thursday said the 1999 constitution, as amended, did not provide for an elected President, Vice President, Governor, and Deputy to spend more than eight years in office.
Aiyedatiwa, who was inaugurated on December 27, 2024 to complete the tenure of Late Governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu , was again sworn in again on February 24, 2025, following his victory in the November 16, 2024 governorship election.
A member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Dr. Akin Egbuwalo, had 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 an interpretation of Section 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution regarding the qualification of Governor Aiyedatiwa to contest for a second term.
The suit filed by Egbuwalo listed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Governor Aiyedatiwa, the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the Deputy Governor, Dr. Olayide Adelami, as defendants.
Justice Adegoke had initially fixed January 28 to decide whether Aiyedatiwa was qualified to re-contest, having been sworn in twice as governor of the state.
However, the defendants stalled the judgment until the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja granted permission for its delivery.
In her verdict, Justice Adegoke held that the processes filed by the third to fifth defendants were deemed abandoned, having failed to participate during the hearing of the suit.
She noted that only the processes of the plaintiff, first defendant, and second defendant would be considered.
Consequently, the court dismissed the objection raised by the first defendant, ruling that the suit was neither speculative nor academic, as argued by the first and second defendants, but disclosed a valid cause of action.
Discover more from The Source
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
