By Obinna Uballa
A fresh legal setback for Ondo State Governor, Lucky Aiyedatiwa, has reignited debate over whether he can legitimately seek another term in office, following a ruling by the Court of Appeal in Abuja that dismissed his challenge in an ongoing constitutional dispute.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by a three-member panel, the appellate court rejected an appeal filed by Aiyedatiwa against a ruling of the Federal High Court in Akure. The governor had sought to overturn the lower court’s decision allowing an amendment to a suit questioning his eligibility to contest the next governorship election in the state.
While the decision does not determine the substantive question of whether Aiyedatiwa can run again in 2028, it clears the way for the legal battle to proceed, a development that has intensified political discussions about the constitutional limits on his tenure.
The suit was instituted by Dr. Akindele Egbuwalo, a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Ondo State, who asked the Federal High Court to interpret provisions of the 1999 Constitution regarding the eligibility of the governor and his deputy, Dr. Olayide Adelami, to seek another term.
Central to the dispute is Section 182(3) of the Constitution, which provides that any person sworn in as governor to complete the tenure of another elected official may not subsequently be elected to that office for more than one additional term.
Egbuwalo argues that because Aiyedatiwa has already taken the oath of office twice, his eligibility to run again in 2028 is constitutionally questionable.
The controversy traces its roots to the political transition that followed the death of the former governor, Oluwarotimi Akeredolu.
Aiyedatiwa, who was serving as deputy governor, was sworn in on December 27, 2024, to complete Akeredolu’s remaining tenure. Months later, he contested the November 16, 2024 governorship election and emerged victorious, taking the oath of office again on February 24, 2025.
To Egbuwalo and some constitutional observers, the sequence of events raises a crucial legal question: does the completion of Akeredolu’s tenure count as a term in office under the Constitution?
The plaintiff approached the Federal High Court in Akure in July 2025 seeking judicial clarification. During proceedings, he applied to amend the originating summons in the suit, a request that Justice Toyin Adegoke granted on November 24, 2025.
Aiyedatiwa, dissatisfied with the ruling, challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal, arguing that the amendment violated his constitutional right to a fair hearing and that the trial court had acted outside its jurisdiction.
His legal team also contended that the amendment fundamentally altered the nature of the case.
However, the Court of Appeal rejected those arguments.
Delivering the lead judgment on Monday, Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam held that the trial court acted within its discretionary powers when it granted the amendment request.
According to the court, Aiyedatiwa failed to demonstrate that the decision caused any miscarriage of justice or denied him the right to fair hearing.
“The appellant has not shown how the amendment occasioned any injustice,” the panel ruled, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit.
The court also ordered the governor to pay N2 million in costs.
In a related ruling, the appellate court dismissed another application filed by Aiyedatiwa seeking to set aside an earlier order it issued on January 27, 2026, which stayed further proceedings at the Federal High Court.
The governor had argued that the order effectively halted the lower court from delivering judgment.
But the Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the stay of proceedings was a lawful step taken to protect the integrity of the appellate process.
The panel noted that by the time the order was issued, the appeal had already been entered, records compiled and briefs filed.
Allowing the trial court to proceed with judgment under those circumstances, the court said, could have rendered the appellate process meaningless.
It added that asking the Court of Appeal to reverse its own order would amount to inviting it to sit on appeal over its own decision.
“If the appellant is dissatisfied with the ruling, the proper forum is the Supreme Court,” the panel stated, awarding an additional N2 million in costs against the governor.
Despite the legal defeat, the Ondo State Government sought to downplay the implications of the judgment.
The governor’s Chief Press Secretary, Ebenezer Adeniyan, emphasised that the ruling did not address the core issue of Aiyedatiwa’s eligibility.
“The main case is still in court. This was just an appeal on an amendment to the main case,” he said.
