*Says Justice Lifu’s judgment blow to political impunity
The Ondo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr Olukayode Ajulo, SAN, has described the November 5, 2026 judgment of Justice Peter O. Lifu as a serious blow to political impunity, insisting that political events should function inside the provisions of the Constitution and relevant electoral legal guidelines.
Ajulo, who is additionally Chairman of the Legal Matters Committee of the Ondo State All Progressives Congress Presidential Campaign Council, mentioned political events have been democratic establishments and never non-public estates or private acquisitions that could possibly be manipulated to serve particular person pursuits.
In a press release, the Ondo Attorney-General mentioned the judgment bolstered the precept that political management should emerge by lawful processes slightly than political preparations designed to bypass established procedures.
He declared: “You cannot microwave democracy and democracy is not instant noodles!”
According to him, the Constitution and electoral legal guidelines present clear tips for the conduct of occasion congresses, conventions and the emergence of occasion management, warning that no political persona ought to contemplate himself or herself above the foundations governing political establishments.
Ajulo cited Section 223(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, which requires each political occasion to supply in its Constitution, the periodic election on democratic foundation, of its principal officers and different members of its government committee or governing physique.
He additionally referred to Section 40 of the Constitution, which ensures freedom of affiliation, noting that the supply doesn’t give political events the liberty to ignore the authorized framework regulating their actions.
The Attorney-General additional cited Section 82(1) of the Electoral Act 2022, which prescribes statutory discover necessities for occasion conventions, congresses and conferences convened to elect government officers.
He mentioned the provisions have been safeguards in opposition to arbitrary political succession and the hijacking of occasion constructions by highly effective people.
“These provisions are usually not decorative.
“They are safeguards against arbitrary political succession and the capture of party institutions by powerful interests,” he mentioned.
Ajulo maintained that the Supreme Court had constantly affirmed the duty of political events to abide by their constitutions and established guidelines.
He referenced the selections in Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244, Amaechi v. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227 and Lau v. PDP (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 60, as judicial authorities underscoring the significance of compliance with occasion constitutions.
He additionally cited the Supreme Court’s resolution in Shinkafi v. Yari (2016) LPELR-26050(SC), arguing that political events couldn’t conduct their electoral processes arbitrarily the place the regulation supplied the framework for such actions.
“The broader constitutional message is clear: no political personality, however influential, can stand above the rules that govern the institution through which he or she seeks power,” he said.
Describing what he known as “microwave party politics” as a menace to inside democracy, Ajulo mentioned the apply of hurriedly assembling political constructions, bypassing established procedures and manufacturing legitimacy shouldn’t be inspired.
He mentioned: “Democracy is not instant noodles. Leadership cannot be assembled in a political kitchen, seasoned with influence and served as legitimacy. It must be properly constituted through lawful and credible processes.”
The Attorney-General, nevertheless, acknowledged the constitutional proper of events to problem judicial selections, noting that the African Democratic Congress (ADC) had indicated its intention to enchantment the judgment.
He mentioned the appellate courts remained the suitable discussion board for resolving questions arising from the choice, together with the reported earlier judgment of a courtroom of coordinate jurisdiction.
Ajulo burdened that the authorized points surrounding the selections deserved cautious judicial consideration however cautioned in opposition to utilizing the appropriate of enchantment as justification for disregarding constitutional requirements of inside occasion governance.
“The right of appeal is sacrosanct. But the right to appeal must not be confused with a licence to disregard the constitutional standards of internal party governance,” he mentioned.
He described the judiciary as a necessary pillar of democracy, arguing that judicial assessment shouldn’t be seen as an impediment to democratic improvement however as a mechanism for shielding democratic establishments.
Insisting that his place was not politically motivated, Ajulo mentioned the problem was basically about respect for the regulation and constitutional order.
“This is not about being partisan; it’s about regulation.
“My message is simple: You cannot break the rules to build a political party and then invoke democracy to defend the breach,” he mentioned.
He added that the period of political shortcuts should give technique to constitutional self-discipline, stressing that no particular person or political construction was greater than the Constitution.
“You cannot microwave legitimacy. You must earn it through due process,” Ajulo declared.
