Is Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa eyeing another term in office? Yes or no, time will surely tell. But the understanding in Ondo State is that he would only spend a term of four years. This understanding is premised on Section 182 (3) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. The provision came into force in 2018. It provides that “a person who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as Governor shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.” Aiyedatiwa was sworn in to complete the unexpired term of his late boss, Arakunrin Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, on December 27, 2023. He was elected to the same office on November 16, 2024. Therefore, the governor is not constitutionally eligible to contest for another term, it is believed.
During the last governorship election, attempts were made by Aiyedatiwa’s political opponents to take advantage of section 182 (3). They attempted to use it to mobilize support against him in the southern senatorial district. The people of the zone were asked to support a southern gubernatorial contender who would be constitutionally qualified to contest for two terms of eight years. Electing Aiyedatiwa was portrayed as shortchanging the zone.
The thinking that Aiyedatiwa would only spend a term of four years was used to garner support for him in the central senatorial district, especially in Akure. The Akure people were in a hurry to realise their age-long dream of having one of them to occupy the Alagbaka Government House. After Aiyedatiwa’s one term, Akure li kan (It would be time for Akure), they chorused. The thinking was also deployed to win the support of the Akoko people for Aiyedatiwa. One of their politically rising son is said to be eying the gubernatorial seat.
But there have been rumours that Aiyedatiwa would try to explore the constitutional possibility of getting another tenure. The rumours have been going round shortly after the last gubernatorial election. Few days ago, one Shola Elekan embarked on what many have described as flying a kite. Elekan ignited an open debate on the eligibility of Aiyedatiwa. He came out with an argument that the governor is constitutionally competent to throw his hat in the governorship ring again.
Elekan argued that Aiyedatiwa has only been elected once. According to him, the governor only assumed office after the death of his boss. Therefore, the succession cannot be regarded as an election and counted as one. A legal practitioner in the state, Wale Odusola, drew attention to Section 182 (3) and warned Aiyedatiwa5 against being misled. Odusola said all the precedents cited by Elekan referred to the old law.
But Elekan replied Odusola: “Since Aiyedatiwa’s succession lasted less than two years, the intention behind Section 182 (3) arguably does not apply to his case. Section 182(3) remains judicially untested in a scenario like Aiyedatiwa’s. Until a court of competent jurisdiction interprets it, legal scholars must resist absolutist interpretations.” Elekan seems to have let the cat out of the bag. This may be the loophole that Aiyedatiwa’s legal strategists are planning to explore. But how far can they go with it?
Section 137(3) and Section 182(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) were inserted through the Fourth Alteration No. 16, Act No. 10 of 2018. Section 137(3) and Section 182(3) bar a president and governor who were sworn in to complete the tenures of their predecessors from being elected to such offices for more than a single term respectively. But this addition to the 1999 Constitution has been a subject of debate since 2022. The speculation about former President Goodluck Jonathan’s interest in the 2023 presidential election provoked the debate.
Some lawyers have argued that Section 137(3) and Section 182(3) contradict other sections of the Constitution. These lawyer include Senior Advocates of Nigeria like Chief Mike Ozekhome. For instance, Section 180(2) and Section 182(1) make it sufficiently clear that a person can be elected to serve as governor for a period of four years and can serve for another four years after being re-elected. Therefore, a person is qualified under the 1999 of the to set up a ek to be president or governor for eight years, they argued.
By virtue of Section 182(1), a person is allowed to be elected twice. But in another breath, the person is being restricted by Section 182( from being elected twice having taken the oath of office to complete the tenure of his predecessor. This is seen as a contradiction. It is argued that taking the oath of office to finish an unexpired term of the predecessor is different from being elected. So, taking the oath of office on two previous occasions is not the same thing as being elected on two previous occasions.
Going by the foregoing argument, that Aiyedatiwa was sworn in to finish the term of Akeredolu is not tantamount to his election as governor. He has only be elected once. Therefore, he is qualified to contest for another term.
But there is a contrary argument has by other lawyers including Femi Falana (SAN), Professor Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), Sebastine Hon (SAN), Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), Tunde Falola and Kabir Akingbolu. Their position is that the 1999 Constitution does not allow a president or governor to spend more than two terms of eight years. They argued that the constitution will not allow anyone to be in office for more than a cumulative period of eight years.
If Jonathan had been elected in 2015, he would have spent more than nine years as president. It would have been an anomaly, a deviation from the provisions of the constitution. This is the kind of situation that the injection of Section 137(3) and section 182(3) into the constitution has corrected, they contended.
If the argument of Falana and others is to go by, Aiyedatiwa would have spent more than five years as governor by 2029. He is not constitutionally competent to contest for the same office again. If he tries, he will be seeking to spend more than the years that the constitution allows.
But if senior lawyers can be arguing over the interpretation of section 137 (3) and section 182 (3), the best thing to do is to approach the court to know the intendment of the provisions? What’s the intendment of the provisions? Is it to prevent a president or governor from spending more than two terms of eight years? Do section 137(3) and section 182 (3) contradict other provisions of the constitution? Does being sworn in to finish the tenure of one’s predecessor amount to being elected? By virtue of Section 137(3) and Section 182(3), a person who is sworn in to take over the subsisting tenure of a predecessor even for a day or one hour can only seek one term in office? Is this fair?
Will Aiyedatiwa approach the court as being speculated? Providence assisted him to be governor. Luck, like everything in life, has its limit. Will he overstretch his luck like former President Goodluck Jonathan?
It is well!
