2028: Ruling excluding me is an interruption, says Aiyedatiwa

Ondo State Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa has termed the Federal High Court verdict barring him from recontesting the governorship election in 2028 as an unnecessary distraction, emphasizing that he never declared interest in contesting another governorship election.

n

Speaking on Channels Television, Aiyedatiwa stated that he had not at any time indicated an intention to run in another election, and there is currently no timetable for any governorship election in the state, with no steps taken suggesting such an ambition.

n

Aiyedatiwa clarified that he wanted to establish some truth so that the general public can have a better understanding of what has been and what is now, emphasizing that a lot has been said on social media, with many misconceptions and opinions trying to distort the truth.

n

He maintained that he had never at any time declared to anybody that he is going to contest an election, and it is not yet time for any governorship election in the state, with no timetable and no sign of any election.

n

Aiyedatiwa explained that he did not approach the court to seek eligibility to contest any election, as the case was initiated by other individuals seeking clarification on his eligibility, and he maintained that the legal battle would not distract him from focusing on governance.

n

He stated that he feels good and will continue doing his work for the good people of Ondo State, aiming to fulfil the promises he made during his campaign and ensure that he delivers, with his focus remaining on delivering on the fresh mandate he recently secured.

n

Aiyedatiwa said he had an election, completed the tenure of his late principal, and contested the election which he won on November 16, 2024, and he has never thought about any other election other than delivering on the fresh mandate that has been given to him.

n

He acknowledged being aware of constitutional provisions regarding tenure for deputies who complete the tenure of their principals but insisted he had not begun to consider any future contest, as the election is still fresh.

n

Aiyedatiwa denied allegations that he was pushing political opponents out of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Ondo State, stating that politics thrives on numbers and he was instead encouraging more people to join the party.

n

He dismissed suggestions of a rift with the Minister of Interior, Hon. Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, stating that both of them remain members of the same political family, with no issue between them, and sometimes seeing push and pull due to different interests in politics.

n

Aiyedatiwa also dismissed claims linking the death of some individuals during the APC congress in the state to internal party disputes, explaining that the incident was related to issues within the National Union of Road Transport Workers and not directly connected to the congress.

n

He further explained that he had expanded the number of stakeholders participating in party meetings since assuming office, from 10 stakeholders from each local government to 60 stakeholders per local government attending meetings every quarter.

n

Aiyedatiwa stated that he had not yet seen the details of the Federal High Court ruling and would consult his lawyers before deciding on the next step, as the judicial system provides several levels of adjudication, including the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

n

He noted that the Supreme Court remains the final authority on constitutional matters and that this is the first time this kind of case is happening in the constitution of Nigeria, requiring careful examination to establish an authority on the matter for the future.

n

Aiyedatiwa clarified reports that his lawyers had already filed an appeal, explaining that the appeal related to earlier preliminary objections during the proceedings and not the judgement delivered by the court.

n

He reiterated that the constitution remains the guiding framework for governance and that its interpretation rests with the judiciary, stating that his view is as stated in the constitution, and the interpretation lies in the hands of the judiciary.