Court Judgment on ADC: Democracy is Not Instant Noodles, Leadership Cannot Be Assembled in Political Kitchen, Ajulo Tells Parties

*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 major blow to political impunity, insisting that political parties must operate within the provisions of the Constitution and applicable electoral laws.

Ajulo, who is also Chairman of the Legal Matters Committee of the Ondo State All Progressives Congress Presidential Campaign Council, said political parties were democratic institutions and not private estates or personal acquisitions that could be manipulated to serve individual interests.

In a statement, the Ondo Attorney-General said the judgment reinforced the principle that political leadership must emerge through lawful processes rather than political arrangements designed to bypass established procedures.

He declared: “You cannot microwave democracy and democracy is not instant noodles!”

According to him, the Constitution and electoral laws provide clear guidelines for the conduct of party congresses, conventions and the emergence of party leadership, warning that no political personality should consider himself or herself above the rules governing political institutions.

Ajulo cited Section 223(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, which requires every political party to provide in its Constitution, the periodic election on democratic basis, of its principal officers and other members of its executive committee or governing body.

He also referred to Section 40 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association, noting that the provision does not give political parties the freedom to disregard the legal framework regulating their activities.

The Attorney-General further cited Section 82(1) of the Electoral Act 2022, which prescribes statutory notice requirements for party conventions, congresses and meetings convened to elect executive officers.

He said the provisions were safeguards against arbitrary political succession and the hijacking 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.

Ajulo maintained that the Supreme Court had consistently affirmed the obligation of political parties to abide by their constitutions and established rules.

He referenced the decisions 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 importance of compliance with party constitutions.

He also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Shinkafi v. Yari (2016) LPELR-26050(SC), arguing that political parties could not conduct their electoral processes arbitrarily where the law provided the framework for such activities.

“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 said the practice of hurriedly assembling political structures, bypassing established procedures and manufacturing legitimacy should not be encouraged.

He said: “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, however, acknowledged the constitutional right of parties to challenge judicial decisions, noting that the African Democratic Congress (ADC) had indicated its intention to appeal the judgment.

He said the appellate courts remained the appropriate forum for resolving questions arising from the decision, including the reported earlier judgment of a court of coordinate jurisdiction.

Ajulo stressed that the legal issues surrounding the decisions deserved careful judicial consideration but cautioned against using the right of appeal as justification for disregarding constitutional standards of internal party 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 said.

He described the judiciary as an essential pillar of democracy, arguing that judicial review should not be seen as an obstacle to democratic development but as a mechanism for protecting democratic institutions.

Insisting that his position was not politically motivated, Ajulo said the issue 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 said.

He added that the era of political shortcuts must give way to constitutional discipline, stressing that no individual or political structure was bigger than the Constitution.

“You cannot microwave legitimacy. You must earn it through due process,” Ajulo declared.