By Ade Oyeyemi
Ondo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr Olukayode Ajulo, SAN, has warned political parties against bypassing established procedures in selecting their leaders, saying democracy cannot be achieved through political shortcuts.
Ajulo described the November 5, 2026 judgment of Justice Peter Lifu, which nullified the leadership of the African Democratic Congress under former Senate President David Mark, as a setback for political impunity.
The Attorney-General, who also chairs the Legal Matters Committee of the Ondo State All Progressives Congress Presidential Campaign Council, said political parties were democratic institutions governed by constitutional provisions and electoral laws, not private establishments that individuals could manipulate for personal interests.
In a statement, he argued that party leadership must emerge through credible and lawful processes, warning that influential political figures must not place themselves above the rules governing their organisations.
“You cannot microwave democracy and democracy is not instant noodles!” he declared.
Ajulo cited Section 223(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, which requires political parties to provide in their constitutions for the periodic democratic election of their principal officers and members of their executive committees or governing bodies.
He also referred to Section 40 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association, stressing that the provision did not exempt political parties from complying with laws regulating their operations.
The Ondo AG further referenced Section 82(1) of the Electoral Act 2022, which stipulates notice requirements for political party conventions, congresses and meetings organised to elect executive officers.
According to him, the provisions are designed to prevent arbitrary leadership succession and the takeover of party structures by powerful individuals.
“These provisions are not ornamental. They are safeguards against arbitrary political succession and the capture of party institutions by powerful interests,” he said.
To reinforce his position, Ajulo cited several Supreme Court decisions, including 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, which he said underscored the importance of political parties adhering to their constitutions and established procedures.
He also referred to the apex court’s decision in Shinkafi v. Yari (2016) LPELR-26050(SC), arguing that political parties could not conduct their internal electoral processes arbitrarily when the law had prescribed the applicable procedures.
“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 stated.
Describing what he called “microwave party politics” as a threat to internal democracy, Ajulo criticised the hurried formation of political structures and attempts to bypass established procedures before claiming legitimacy.
“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,” he said.
The Attorney-General, however, acknowledged the right of the ADC to challenge the judgment, noting that the party had indicated its intention to approach the appellate court.
He maintained that the appellate courts were the appropriate institutions to resolve the legal issues arising from the ruling, including questions relating to an earlier decision reportedly delivered by a court of coordinate jurisdiction.
While recognising the right of appeal, Ajulo cautioned that it should not be interpreted as permission to disregard constitutional requirements governing internal party administration.
“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 said.
He described the judiciary as a critical pillar of democracy, arguing that judicial intervention should be viewed as a means of protecting democratic institutions rather than an obstacle to their development.
Insisting that his comments were not politically motivated, Ajulo said the controversy was fundamentally about respect for the law and constitutional order.
“This is not about being partisan; it’s about law. My message is simple: You cannot break the rules to build a political party and then invoke democracy to defend the breach,” he added.
He urged political actors to abandon shortcuts and embrace constitutional discipline, maintaining that no individual or political organisation was above the Constitution.
“You cannot microwave legitimacy. You must earn it through due process,” Ajulo declared.
