Kayode Ajulo & Co. Castle of Law

10/10/2026

https://sunshinetruthng.com/2026/10/10/aketi-70-from-spats-to-standing-ovation-aiyedatiwas-gesture-melts-ice-as-betty-akeredolu-hails-governor/

Aketi @ 70: From Spats to Standing Ovation: Aiyedatiwa’s Gesture Melts Ice as Betty Akeredolu Hails Governor

-Mayegun J. Oloriegbe, JP

Yesterday at the International Conference Centre, University of Ibadan, the posthumous 70th birthday colloquium of the late Arakunrin Oluwarotimi Odunayo Akeredolu, SAN, CON, became far more than a remembrance. It transformed into a powerful statement of solidarity, healing, reconciliation and collective honour for the Aketi family - a great day and defining moment for Ondo State.

At the centre of the moment was Governor Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, whose statesmanship rose to celestial heights, demonstrating the kind of political gesture and maturity that is often praised in theory but rarely celebrated when it happens in practice. In a room filled with dignitaries, in a moment that melted every lingering political frost, the Governor affectionately and publicly described Dr. Betty Anyanwu-Akeredolu, widow of his late principal, as his "political godmother."

Against the background of their past political disagreements, the depth of that remarkable recognition, delivered with sincerity and humility, carried a significance that went beyond the words themselves and moved the entire hall. It was a public recognition that yesterday’s disagreements need not become tomorrow’s permanent hostility. Dr. Betty’s response was equally telling. She rose, bowed gracefully and applauded the Governor. It was spontaneous, dignified and powerful- a moment that communicated louder than many carefully crafted political statements ever could.

It was the purest form of political grace, and Governor Aiyedatiwa deserves to be praised to the highest heavens for bridging divides and elevating the moment with such dignity and emotional intelligence.

The occasion was further strengthened by the presence of the Ondo State Government’s leadership, which underscored Governor Aiyedatiwa’s genuine commitment to unity and collective leadership. The entire State Executive Council, led by the Secretary to the State Government, Dr. Taiwo Fasoranti- one of the earliest and most punctual callers at the event- turned out in force.

Also present were the State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr. Olukayode Ajulo, SAN, OON; the Chief of Staff to the Governor, Prince Omojuwa; the APC State Chairman, Kolawole Babatunde; the Speaker of the Ondo State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Olamide Oladiji; commissioners; special advisers; party leaders; and other dignitaries. Their presence reflected the administration’s collective respect for Aketi’s memory and solidarity with his family.

Distinguished guests from across the South-West also attended, including Ogun State Governor Prince Dapo Abiodun, who delivered the keynote address, and former Ekiti State Governor Dr. Kayode Fayemi, whose reflections on shared struggles and enduring friendship added depth to the occasion. The gathering brought together political leaders and associates whose relationships with Aketi had been shaped by different experiences, interests and, at times, disagreements. Yet they came together to honour his life and legacy.

One cannot help but wonder what those who have spent seasons accusing Governor Aiyedatiwa felt as they watched this scene unfold. The warmth of that mutual recognition between the Governor and Aketi’s widow must have stung their eyes. The spontaneous bow and applause from Dr. Betty Anyanwu-Akeredolu must have silenced the loud narratives they had spun. In Yoruba parlance, they would say, "Ojú wọn á bó"- their eyes will be covered in shame.

There is a hard truth here. Some people have built their entire political relevance around disagreements they did not create and cannot resolve. Their value lies not in ideas, competence, service or the capacity to build, but in keeping tensions alive, amplifying grievances and ensuring that yesterday’s quarrel becomes tomorrow’s political emergency. Once reconciliation begins, their influence begins to shrink. So they look for another disagreement to inflame, another relationship to poison and another imaginary battle to announce.

Therefore, this should serve as a lasting lesson: never fight a war whose beginning you do not understand. Those of you who thrive on manufacturing and amplifying political spats, often for personal gain, relevance or the crumbs that fall from engineered conflict, are the real authors of the tension- àwọn onijẹkujẹ.

They did it with Aiyedatiwa and Betty; now the same restless hands are at work inventing an imaginary war between Aiyedatiwa and BTO. Let them exercise restraint. Not every difference is a crisis, not every political relationship requires a fight, and not every rumour deserves the dignity of a response. Those who genuinely care about Ondo State will encourage constructive engagement, not turn every interaction among political leaders into a contest of hostility.

The people of Ondo are watching, and grace has a way of exposing those who profit from discord. In that hall in Ibadan, Ondo State presented a better image of its political life - united, gracious and proud. It was, indeed, a great day for the Sunshine State.

_Oloriegbe is the Convener, The Progressives Counsel_

Nothing but the Truth

04/10/2026

WHEN THE SUPREME COURT SPEAKS, POLITICS MUST NOW FOLLOW THE LAW: THE ELECTORAL ACT 2026, MEMBERSHIP REGISTERS, PARTY PRIMARIES AND THE LIMITS OF POLITICAL DISCRETION.
..A Legal Perspective on the Supreme Court’s Judgment on the Electoral Act 2026

By Dr. Olukayode Ajulo, OON, SAN

The Supreme Court has spoken. We must now allow the law to speak through our conduct.

On 24 September 2026, the Supreme Court allowed INEC’s appeal in the dispute concerning Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. It set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restored the judgment of the Federal High Court.

The immediate consequence is clear, but it is worth stating it correctly. The Supreme Court did not make these provisions law. They were enacted by the National Assembly. What the Supreme Court has now authoritatively determined is that the provisions challenged before it are not unconstitutional on the grounds upon which they were challenged. That distinction matters.

The provisions remain part of the law governing our electoral process, and they must be treated accordingly. The reports of the judgment indicate that the seven-member panel, led by Justice Adamu Jauro, specifically upheld Sections 77(5), (6) and (7), as well as Section 84(2), and held that they were not inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution.

There is another point which deserves emphasis because it goes to the heart of the constitutional argument. Section 228(a) of the Constitution expressly empowers the National Assembly to make laws providing guidelines and rules to ensure internal democracy within political parties, including laws regulating the conduct of party primaries, congresses and conventions.

Indeed, in President, Federal Republic of Nigeria & Anor v National Assembly & Ors (2022), the Supreme Court considered the scope of this constitutional power and recognised that the legislative authority of the National Assembly extends to making laws concerning internal party affairs within the constitutional limits prescribed by Section 228(a). That is significant.

The autonomy of political parties is real. But it is not an autonomy exercised in a constitutional vacuum. Party autonomy operates within the Constitution and within legislation validly enacted pursuant to the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s present judgment must therefore be understood against that constitutional architecture.

There has been understandable public interest in the fact that the Court of Appeal had earlier reached a different conclusion. There is nothing unusual about that in the life of litigation. Courts sometimes disagree, and that is precisely why our judicial system has appellate courts. The important point is that the Supreme Court is the apex court.

Section 287(1) of the Constitution is unequivocal: "The decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court." That constitutional command is not ornamental.

The Supreme Court has now set aside the contrary decision of the Court of Appeal. The latter therefore cannot continue to be treated as the prevailing judicial position on the constitutional questions determined by the apex court. As the Supreme Court itself has repeatedly emphasised, its decisions bind the lower courts and must be given effect. The controversy has therefore moved from interpretation to compliance.

Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) concern the membership register of political parties and its use in congresses, conventions and primaries. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, these provisions should no longer be approached as though their constitutional validity remains an open question. They are operative provisions of the Electoral Act.

A political party that is required by law to submit a membership register to INEC cannot reasonably treat that register as a document that may be disregarded whenever it becomes inconvenient. The Supreme Court’s decision does not, of course, prevent whatever lawful administrative corrections or updates the Electoral Act or valid regulations permit. But the governing principle is straightforward. A statutory requirement cannot be reduced to a matter of political convenience.

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has long recognised that not every disagreement within a political party is justiciable. In Onuoha v Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244, the Court established the traditional principle concerning the internal affairs of political parties. That principle has subsequently been considered in cases including Shinkafi v Yari (2016) and APGA v Anyanwu. But there is an important qualification. Where the legislature has expressly regulated an aspect of the electoral process, compliance with that statutory regime is a matter of law.

Indeed, in PDP v Lawal (2023), the Supreme Court recognised that an allegation of non-compliance with statutory requirements governing the nomination process could properly engage the jurisdiction of the courts. So, the proposition that political parties have internal autonomy cannot be stretched into a proposition that statutory electoral requirements are optional. Autonomy is not immunity from the law.

This is why Section 84(2) deserves equal attention. The same reasoning applies to Section 84(2), which provides for direct primaries or consensus as methods of nominating candidates.

The Supreme Court has now upheld the constitutional validity of that statutory framework in the case before it. The Court has not invented a new method of party nomination. Rather, it has determined that the statutory framework enacted by the National Assembly is not unconstitutional on the grounds presented in the litigation.

Political parties therefore need to examine their nomination procedures carefully and ensure that their internal processes conform to the Electoral Act. The principle is neither complicated nor controversial: Political parties are free to conduct their affairs within the law; they are not free to conduct their affairs outside it.

Therefore my word to political parties and aspirants will be to urge them to take this judgment seriously, and to do so without partisan colour. This is not a judgment that should be viewed simply as a victory for INEC or a setback for a particular political party. It is a judgment of the Supreme Court.

Every political party should therefore review its membership register, congress and convention arrangements, primary procedures, nomination guidelines and relevant electoral timetable against the Electoral Act as it now stands.

Aspirants should also do the same. No serious aspirant should leave the legality of the process to chance and hope to resolve it in court after the political contest is over. We have seen enough of that. A candidate should emerge from a lawful process, not become lawful merely because he or she has emerged. That distinction is worth remembering.

INEC should now give clear and practical effect to the judgment. Its guidelines and communications to political parties should reflect the law as it has been authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Court, and it should make the relevant requirements clear, communicate applicable timelines properly and apply the law consistently to all political parties.

However, there is an equally important caution. INEC must administer the law; it must not make the law. The Commission cannot use its regulatory powers to add requirements that Parliament has not imposed, just as it cannot disregard requirements that Parliament has imposed and the courts have upheld. Its strength lies not in making electoral law, but in administering it fairly, faithfully and within the limits of its constitutional and statutory mandate.

And as patriots, we must learn to accept judicial decisions. This is a broader issue which, in my view, deserves attention. We must develop a stronger culture of accepting judicial decisions, particularly decisions of the apex court.

It is perfectly legitimate to disagree with a judgment. It is equally legitimate, where the law permits, to seek an appropriate judicial remedy. What is not acceptable in a constitutional democracy is for institutions or political actors to select the parts of a judgment that suit them and disregard the rest.

Section 287(1) does not say that Supreme Court decisions shall be obeyed when convenient. It says they shall be enforced. The rule of law cannot operate on a pick-and-choose basis. So we should let 2027 elections begin with compliance.

The 2027 elections are still ahead of us. There is therefore time for political parties and aspirants to look carefully at their processes, identify areas of possible non-compliance and correct them lawfully before they become disputes. That would be far better than conducting questionable processes today and asking the courts to rescue them tomorrow.

The lesson of this judgment, to my mind, is simple. The Supreme Court has settled the constitutional controversy before it. The Court of Appeal’s contrary decision has been set aside. The statutory provisions upheld by the Supreme Court remain operative.

The duty of political parties is to comply. The duty of aspirants is to understand the law before entering the contest. The duty of INEC is to administer the law fairly, consistently and within the limits of its statutory powers. And the duty of all of us is to remember that elections are not conducted in a legal vacuum.

Politics may be about competition. But the rules of that competition are determined by law. The Supreme Court has spoken. Let us now allow the law to do its work.

_Dr. Ajulo is the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Ondo State._

01/10/2026

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY, NIGERIA 🇳🇬

Today, we honour our journey, celebrate our shared heritage, and renew our faith in the promise of a greater Nigeria.

May we remain united in purpose and committed to building a nation of peace, justice and prosperity for generations yet unborn.

May God bless Nigeria and all Nigerians. 🇳🇬

01/10/2026

24/09/2026

Ondo Anti-Land Grabbing Task Force Rejects Fawehinmi Allegations, Says No 104-Year-Old Woman Was Harassed

…says petition was against Olarenwaju Fawehinmi alone, repeated invitations ignored

…no attempt at distraction will undermine Task Force operations - Ajulo

The Ondo State Anti-Land Grabbing Task Force has rejected the allegations contained in reports accusing its operatives of harassing a 104-year-old woman, threatening members of the Fawehinmi family with arrest and interfering with a matter allegedly pending before the courts.

The Task Force described the report as misleading, saying the matter before it is a petition written specifically against one Olanrewaju Fawehinmi and not against the entire Fawehinmi family. It said no other member of the family was the subject of the invitation issued by the agency, questioning the attempt to present the matter as though the entire Fawehinmi family had been targeted.

The agency said the identity of Olarenwaju himself is not even personally known to officials in the agency’s office, saying he had been on the run and neither honoured any of the invitations nor responded to calls made to him concerning the matter. Instead, it was Olanrewaju’s lawyer who contacted the office and referred to the court proceedings instituted against the Task Force.

"We got a warrant of arrest against Olanrewaju having defaulted on the invitations, simply to enforce the law. Even if you commit a crime in your own house, the appropriate authorities have the mandate to arrest you in your house and cannot say that because it is your house or family house, they cannot arrest you." The Task Force said.

The Task Force also dismissed the claim that it was strange or improper for the agency to continue with its statutory responsibilities because a suit had been filed, saying the mere filing of a court case does not, by itself, erase investigative process arising from a petition, particularly where the agency is required by law to investigate allegations brought before it.

Reacting to the development, the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice and Chairman of the Ondo State Anti-Land Grabbing Task Force, Dr Olukayode Ajulo, SAN, OON, described the statement as a mere distraction and falsehood, saying it would not derail the Task Force from the mandate given to it. He said the administration’s anti-land-grabbing policy was designed to restore order, violence and strengthen due process in land-related matters across Ondo State.

The Attorney-General maintained that no amount of media pressure, intimidation of public opinion or attempt to politicise an investigation would undermine the lawful operations of the Task Force. He added that the agency would continue to discharge its responsibilities professionally, fairly and in accordance with the law.

He said that the mere institution of a case against the Task Force will not tie the hands of the agency or extinguish its statutory responsibilities, stating that only a specific order of the Court directed at the Task Force can restrain it from carrying out its statutory mandate, and that such an order, by operation of law, is subject to variation or discharge. He added that the mere filing of a suit cannot, in itself, be used to prevent a statutory body from carrying out its lawful responsibilities.

He further emphasised that the Anti-Land Grabbing Task Force is a professionally constituted body operating under his office and not an assemblage of individuals acting arbitrarily. Its Secretary is a senior lawyer of Director cadre, while its Head of Enforcement is a highly trained security professional of Commander rank, with the requisite expertise to enforce the law.

The Commissioner said he was particularly pained by the unnecessary exposure of the elderly woman, noting that the issue touches him personally and deeply because he has a 91-year-old mother himself. He said he could not imagine the distress that such public exposure could cause to her and her family, stressing that disagreements or legal disputes involving an individual should never become an excuse to subject an innocent and vulnerable parent to unnecessary media embarrassment.

"Perhaps I feel this more deeply because I am also a son to a fragile 91-year-old mother. I understand the tenderness, dignity and care that someone of that age deserves. At such an advanced age, an elderly woman should be surrounded by love, protection and peace, not placed at the centre of a controversy or exposed to public scrutiny over a matter in which she has no involvement. It is therefore particularly painful to see the image of an aged woman being brought into a dispute that does not concern her." The AG said.

He described the use of the old woman and her photograph to generate sympathy, mislead the public or twist the facts of the matter as uncharitable and deeply insensitive. According to him, whatever grievance may exist against the accused individual, it is neither fair nor humane to expose the head of the family or drag unrelated members of the family into a matter concerning only one named person.

The Attorney-General therefore urged the accused person to present himself to the appropriate authorities, noting that there is a valid warrant of arrest against him and not against his head of the family, the elderly woman, or any other member of his family. He stressed that where a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a lawful warrant of arrest, it is the duty of every responsible citizen, and not only an officer of the Task Force, to execute such a warrant in the discharge of an official and civic duty and responsibility, adding that no one can be sanctioned merely for carrying out such a lawful judicial directive of the court.

"If there is a case to answer, let the person against whom the warrant was issued present himself and answer it. There is no justification whatsoever for turning his head of the family into the face of the controversy. He said.

The Commissioner also cautioned some legal practitioners against deploying frivolous or obstructive court processes to frustrate the lawful activities of the Task Force. He said lawyers are officers of the court who should know the law and must remain guided by the Rules of Professional Conduct. As Chief Law Officer of the State, he said it is his responsibility to protect the integrity of the Judiciary, legal profession and the administration of justice, adding that where any lawyer crosses the professional 'yellow line', he will not hesitate, in accordance with due process, to take appropriate action against such erring lawyers.

He equally urged Sahara Reporters and other media organisations to observe the basic tenets of responsible journalism by seeking the response of the other parties before publishing reports. He said the public deserves the whole truth, rather than a narrative shaped by the emotional portrayal of an elderly woman or the unnecessary involvement of innocent members of her illustrious family.

22/09/2026

Ends Payment for Homicide Autopsies, Victims Must Not Buy Justice - Ondo AG

Ondo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr. Olukayode Ajulo SAN, OON, has advocated an end to the practice of requiring families of homicide victims to pay for autopsies and other medical examinations necessary for criminal investigations.

Ajulo said bereaved families should not be made to shoulder the cost of establishing the cause of death where a person has died under suspicious, unnatural or potentially criminal circumstances.

According to him, where a death is being investigated as homicide, an autopsy is a necessary component of the investigation and should not depend on the family’s ability to pay. He explained that the procedure is not merely a private medical service for the deceased’s relatives, but an important investigative process for establishing the cause and circumstances of death and obtaining evidence that may be crucial to prosecution.

He said the position is consistent with the philosophy and objectives of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and the applicable Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL), which seek to promote an efficient, humane and victim-sensitive criminal justice system while safeguarding the rights of accused persons.

“It is therefore the responsibility of the relevant government and investigative authorities to ensure that the examination is conducted promptly and the resulting medical report made available to investigators and prosecuting counsel. A citizen who has suffered a crime should not be required to purchase justice before the State will investigate that crime. He said.

Ajulo noted that the absence of autopsy or other medical evidence has, in some cases, created significant difficulties in the prosecution of homicide offences. He explained that prosecuting counsel may diligently present a case only to encounter an evidentiary gap because the necessary examination was not conducted or the resulting report was unavailable.

“In some instances, relatives of deceased persons would tell the court that no autopsy was conducted because the family could not afford the fees demanded for the examination. This can leave prosecutors without crucial evidence required to establish the cause of death and properly present the State’s case." He added.

The Attorney-General said the responsibility for investigating suspected criminal conduct should not be transferred to bereaved families, stressing that financial circumstances must not determine whether essential medico-legal evidence is obtained.

"Justice must never become a commodity available only to those who can afford its preliminary cost." He said.

He stressed that the policy does not diminish the constitutional rights of persons accused of crimes. Rather, it is intended to ensure that criminal proceedings are determined on the basis of properly obtained evidence and due process.

Ajulo called for closer coordination among the Police, medical practitioners, the judiciary and other relevant institutions to ensure that autopsies in suspected homicide cases are conducted promptly. He also called for clear procedures covering the preservation of evidence, post-mortem examinations and the transmission of medical reports to investigators and prosecuting counsel.

He said the measure forms part of the broader reform of criminal justice administration contemplated by the ACJA and corresponding state legislation, noting that modern criminal justice must recognise not only the rights of defendants but also the dignity and legitimate interests of victims and their families.

The Commissioner said appropriate State institutions and budgetary mechanisms should provide for medico-legal examinations required in the investigation of suspected crimes.

"Government and investigative authorities must investigate crime, they must prosecute crime, and where a medical examination is an essential part of that criminal investigation, the burden should rest upon the government and the investigative authorities, not upon the victim’s grieving family." He stressed.

Ajulo said the measure should form part of government’s efforts to strengthen criminal investigation and prosecution, ensure access to essential forensic and medical evidence, and reduce the burden on families already dealing with the loss of a loved one.

21/09/2026

*Regulatory Framework for Herbal, Alcoholic Products Underway, Says Ondo AG, Seeks Coroner’s Inquest into Deaths.*

*…Illegal producers, distributors to face full weight of the law.*

Ondo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr. Olukayode Ajulo, SAN, OON, has said the review of the regulatory framework governing the preparation, production, distribution, sale and consumption of locally prepared herbal and alcoholic products in the state is underway.

The Attorney-General disclosed this in Akure on Sunday while responding to the incident involving suspected consumption of harmful alcoholic and herbal concoctions, saying the ongoing review would seek to identify possible gaps in the existing system and determine appropriate legislative, regulatory and administrative measures within the competence of the state.

Ajulo said the government’s responsibility extended beyond determining what happened, stressing the need to establish why the incident occurred, whether it could have been prevented and what should be changed to prevent a recurrence.

"Immediately the matter came to the attention of Government, I formally wrote to the Honourable Chief Judge of Ondo State requesting the constitution of a Coroner’s Court to inquire into the deaths. The inquest will examine the circumstances surrounding the tragedy and establish, on the basis of evidence, both the immediate and remote causes of the deaths." He said.

The Attorney-General said the State’s response would not stop at establishing the circumstances of the deaths, but would also examine the wider regulatory environment surrounding locally prepared herbal and alcoholic products.

"Accordingly, the Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Justice has been reviewing the regulatory framework governing the preparation, production, distribution, sale and consumption of locally prepared herbal and alcoholic products, in consultation with relevant authorities for a time now." The AG said.

He added that where weaknesses or gaps were identified within the State’s area of competence, appropriate legislative, regulatory and administrative measures were being considered.

He said the move to strengthen regulation of the sector had, however, been under consideration even before the recent incident, as a draft of regulations governing the activities of the sector had been proposed and submitted to his office by some stakeholders and concerned citizens.

He noted that among those who had contributed to the earlier proposal was a popular journalist, Mr. Goke Oluwole, who had experience in the regulation of the sector and had brought his expertise to the development of the proposed regulatory framework.

"The process will include accountability. Where the evidence establishes criminal responsibility, the appropriate legal action will be taken in accordance with the Constitution and the law. No one will be shielded from investigation by reason of status, influence or connection and equally, no person will be condemned without due process.

"Our response will therefore rest on three commitments: truth, accountability and prevention. We must establish the truth for the families who mourn. We must ensure accountability where responsibility is established. And we must strengthen our systems so that other families are spared this kind of grief." The Commissioner said.

The Attorney-General said the government remained committed to ensuring that the circumstances surrounding the incident were properly investigated and that any subsequent action was based on evidence and the law. He expressed sympathy to the families who lost loved ones and prayed for strength and comfort for the bereaved, while also wishing those receiving medical treatment a full recovery.

"We owe the departed the truth, the bereaved justice, and the living a safer tomorrow." Ajulo concluded.