Prior to the presidential primary of our great party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), President Bola Ahmed Tinubu embarked on extensive consultations, engaged party stakeholders, appealed to critical interests and worked to mend fences across the party. Despite being the sole aspirant in the contest, he did not take the process for granted. His approach demonstrated the importance of consultation, consensus-building and respect for party members in the pursuit of political legitimacy.
This raises a fundamental question: If a presidential aspirant who stood unopposed considered consultation and grassroots engagement indispensable, why should the outcome of a contested primary election be treated as inconsequential?
In Ondo East/West Federal Constituency, the controversy surrounding the APC House of Representatives primary has raised serious questions about internal party democracy and the sanctity of electoral mandates. According to the position maintained by supporters of Hon. Dr Abiola Makinde, he emerged as the winner of the primary, with the result reportedly announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Yet, the subsequent substitution of his name with that of Dr Ajilo Akintomide has generated considerable concern among party faithful and constituents.
HAM Volunteers Movement believes that every aspirant has the right to contest an election, but no aspirant should be permitted to circumvent the will of accredited voters through any process that undermines the integrity of the primary. Where the outcome of an election is disputed, the appropriate course is to subject the matter to transparent procedures and the rule of law, rather than allow uncertainty to erode the confidence of party members.
AJILO’S AUDACITY: WHERE IS THE HUMILITY OF A CONTESTANT WHOSE MANDATE IS DISPUTED?
What is particularly troubling is the posture Dr Ajilo Akintomide appears to have adopted amid the controversy surrounding his emergence as the APC candidate. At a time when political maturity demands humility, reconciliation and genuine engagement with aggrieved party members, the public deserves to see a willingness to listen, acknowledge concerns and seek a path towards reconciliation, not an attitude that could be interpreted as entitlement to a mandate whose legitimacy remains contested.
Politics is not a coronation, and a disputed victory is certainly not a licence for political arrogance. The privilege of occupying a public office must be accompanied by humility, accountability and respect for the people whose confidence a politician seeks to earn.
President Tinubu understood the importance of consultation even when he stood unopposed. Why, then, should an aspirant whose emergence has generated controversy behave as though consultation and reconciliation are beneath him? If the political process has delivered him a position that others continue to challenge, would it not demonstrate greater maturity to reach out to aggrieved stakeholders, seek understanding and work towards restoring confidence?
When the route to a political destination is disputed, humility should be the first response, not audacity. When a mandate is contested, reconciliation should be the priority, not entitlement.
Dr Ajilo and his supporters must understand that political recognition is not synonymous with popular acceptance, just as a name appearing on a candidate list does not automatically extinguish legitimate questions about the process that produced it. The distinction between occupying a position and commanding the confidence of the people is fundamental to representative democracy.
What precedent does this situation set for our party and our constituency? Can we build a sustainable political future on a process whose legitimacy remains contested? Can the confidence of our people be preserved if the outcome announced after a primary election is subsequently challenged by the substitution of the declared winner?
These are questions that deserve serious consideration. Party supremacy must not be confused with unchecked discretion, and political influence must never become a substitute for due process. The APC’s strength lies not merely in its ability to win elections but also in its commitment to fairness, credibility and democratic participation within its own ranks.
HAM Volunteers therefore maintains that the dispute concerning the Ondo East/West Federal Constituency primary should be resolved transparently, in accordance with the law and the applicable party rules. We remain hopeful that the judicial process will provide a fair determination of the competing claims and protect the rights of all parties involved.
As we look towards the 2027 general elections, we encourage eligible voters and party members across Ondo East and West to participate actively in the democratic process, engage constructively with political stakeholders and make informed electoral choices. We also reaffirm our commitment to the democratic process and to constructive engagement around President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Renewed Hope agenda.
Our message is simple: no political ambition is greater than the people’s mandate, no party position is above the rule of law, and no aspirant should mistake political advantage for an unquestionable endorsement by the electorate.
Democracy must begin within the party before it can be credibly defended before the electorate. The will of party members deserves respect, and every mandate must stand on a foundation of due process, transparency and the rule of law.
SIGNED:
Ayorinde ADETULA (Richblaq)
Media Manager, HAM Volunteers Movement
24th October, 2026
