By Obinna Uballa
Ondo State Governor, Lucky Aiyedatiwa, has dismissed a recent Federal High court judgment in Akure that barred him from seeking a second term in 2028, describing the ruling as “premature and unnecessary.”
The New Diplomat had reported that the Federal High Court on Thursday ruled that Aiyedatiwa is ineligible to seek reelection in 2028.
Speaking on Friday during a live interview on Channels Television, Aiyedatiwa insisted that he has never expressed interest in contesting another governorship election, stressing that the matter is being misrepresented on social media.
“I would like to start by clarifying the facts so that the public can have a proper understanding of what has happened,” he said.
He explained that there is currently no timetable for another election in Ondo State and that he has not declared any intention to run. “The truth is that I have never at any time declared to anybody that I am going to contest an election,” Aiyedatiwa said.
The governor noted that the suit was initiated by other individuals seeking judicial interpretation on the issue of eligibility for a second term. He stressed that the litigation does not distract him from governance.
“I don’t feel any form of distraction. I feel good, and I will continue doing my work for the good people of Ondo State,” he said.
Aiyedatiwa recalled that he won the governorship election on November 16, 2024, after completing the tenure of his late principal, and said his focus remains on delivering on that fresh mandate.
“I have never thought about any other election other than delivering on the mandate that has been given to me,” he said.
On whether he would challenge the verdict, Aiyedatiwa said he is yet to review the details of the judgment and will consult his lawyers before deciding on the next steps. “The judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in Akure is a judgment of the court. I have not seen the details. My lawyers will look at it and advise,” he said.
He also highlighted that the judicial process allows further interpretation at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, noting that the case could ultimately serve as a reference point for constitutional interpretation regarding tenure limits for deputies who complete the tenure of their principals.
