Jonathan, Ayedatiwa and the Constitutional Risk of Succession Politics.
By Wale Obanigba, Esq.
Wednesday, 27 May 2026
Until now, I had decided to stay out of the Ondo State political brouhaha and enjoy the historic victory of Arsenal FC in the just concluded English Premier League. But I am compelled to intervene once again in this trending constitutional issue, which I earlier addressed in my article titled “Ambition, Constitutional Limits and Rising Political Tension in Ondo.”
The constitutional debate over Governor Lucky Ayedatiwa’s future eligibility continues to draw legal and political attention in Ondo State, largely because some actors have drawn parallels with the judicial precedents involving Goodluck Jonathan. This debate was sharpened by the ruling of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, which has renewed public focus on how succession and tenure limits apply under the Fourth Alteration.
A closer examination shows the situations are materially different.
Jonathan’s succession to the presidency occurred in 2010, years before the introduction of Section 137(3) through the Fourth Alteration of the Constitution in 2018. The courts that ruled in his favour relied on the principle against retrospective application of laws, holding that the restriction could not invalidate rights or circumstances that existed before the amendment came into force.
That legal shield is unavailable to Governor Ayedatiwa. He assumed office in December 2023, after the constitutional amendment had already become binding law.
More fundamentally, Ayedatiwa’s circumstances appear to fall within the mischief Sections 137(3) and 182(3) were designed to cure. The provisions were introduced to ensure that individuals who ascend to executive office through succession do not remain in office beyond the constitutionally contemplated duration of eight years through repeated electoral opportunities.
Having completed the tenure of the late Rotimi Akeredolu and secured electoral victory in 2024, a strong constitutional argument exists that Ayedatiwa has already exhausted the single additional term permitted under the Constitution. Any contrary interpretation risks undermining the spirit and purpose of the Fourth Alteration and reopening the loophole the amendment sought to close.
The debate remains delicate when considered alongside the opinion of former President of the Court of Appeal, Hon. Justice Ayo Isa Salami, even while acknowledging the present position of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal on Jonathan’s eligibility.
Justice Salami maintained that Section 137(3) effectively foreclosed any further presidential ambition by Jonathan. In his view, the amendment was designed to prevent any individual who completed the tenure of another elected president from remaining in office beyond the constitutionally intended maximum period.
He rejected the argument that the amendment could not apply merely because Jonathan’s succession occurred before 2018, insisting that constitutional amendments, unlike criminal legislation, may validly relate back to the principal enactment they seek to alter. That is, an alteration to the Constitution takes effect from the date the Constitution itself came into effect, unlike an amendment to an ordinary statute.
For Salami, the real issue was whether Jonathan, having completed the tenure of the late Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, could lawfully seek another mandate without violating the spirit and purpose of constitutional tenure limitation. His intervention focused not on technical wording alone, but on the broader democratic philosophy underpinning tenure limits and succession. Constitutional restrictions, he argued, were crafted to subordinate political ambition to the supremacy of the Constitution and to prevent the extension of executive occupancy beyond the intended framework.
Constitutionally and jurisprudentially, the final and authoritative interpretation of the Jonathan eligibility question still rests with the Supreme Court of Nigeria. As the apex court vested with ultimate interpretative authority, its pronouncement will settle the matter. Until then, the issue arguably remains legally contestable despite the persuasive decisions of the lower courts.
The case of Jonathan is distinguishable from that of Governor Ayedatiwa. Unlike Jonathan, Ayedatiwa is caught by Section 182(3) because his ascension occurred after the Fourth Alteration had come into force. Even so, in Salami’s view, the same constitutional fate may ultimately befall both under a strict interpretation of Sections 137(3) and 182(3) by the Supreme Court.
For that reason, any political party that grants either individual its ticket may be taking a significant constitutional and political risk. In the eventuality of victory at the polls, it constitutes a fundamental ground to approach the election tribunal on eligibility.
Wale Obanigba, Esq., writes from Akure.
