*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 significant blow to political impunity, insisting that political events should function throughout 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 might be manipulated to serve particular person pursuits.
In a press release, the Ondo Attorney-General mentioned the judgment strengthened the precept that political management should emerge by lawful processes somewhat 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 social gathering congresses, conventions and the emergence of social gathering management, warning that no political character 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 social gathering 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 availability 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 social gathering conventions, congresses and conferences convened to elect government officers.
He mentioned the provisions have been safeguards towards arbitrary political succession and the hijacking of social gathering buildings by highly effective people.
“These provisions aren’t 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 persistently affirmed the duty of political events to abide by their constitutions and established guidelines.
He referenced the choices 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 social gathering constitutions.
He additionally cited the Supreme Court’s choice in Shinkafi v. Yari (2016) LPELR-26050(SC), arguing that political events couldn’t conduct their electoral processes arbitrarily the place the legislation offered 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 risk to inside democracy, Ajulo mentioned the observe of hurriedly assembling political buildings, 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 pressured that the authorized points surrounding the choices deserved cautious judicial consideration however cautioned towards utilizing the fitting of enchantment as justification for disregarding constitutional requirements of inside social gathering 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 vital pillar of democracy, arguing that judicial assessment shouldn’t be seen as an impediment to democratic growth 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 legislation and constitutional order.
“This is not about being partisan; it’s about legislation.
“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 strategy to constitutional self-discipline, stressing that no particular person or political construction was larger than the Constitution.
“You cannot microwave legitimacy. You must earn it through due process,” Ajulo declared.
