A COUNTER-REJOINDER TO THE APC ABORIGINES OF ONDO EAST AND ONDO WEST
The attention of HAM Volunteers Movement has been drawn to the publication by the APC Aborigines of Ondo East and Ondo West Local Governments, dated 27 October 2026, concerning the disputed APC House of Representatives ticket for Ondo East/Ondo West Federal Constituency. While we acknowledge their right to express their views, we consider it necessary to correct certain assertions and emphasise that party supremacy must operate within the confines of the law, and no administrative decision should be presented as immune from judicial scrutiny.
The comparison drawn between President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s pre-primary consultations and Dr. Michael Olamidotun Akintomide Ajilo’s post-primary engagements does not resolve the central issue. Consultation and reconciliation are commendable, but they cannot retrospectively validate a disputed electoral process. The fundamental question remains whether the APC primary conducted on 15 May 2026 was properly conducted and whether the subsequent recognition of a candidate complied with the party’s rules and applicable electoral laws. Political outreach cannot substitute for evidence, just as reconciliation cannot replace accountability.
The APC Aborigines’ assertion that Dr. Ajilo emerged victorious and subsequently received the endorsement of the party’s National Working Committee (NWC) does not, by itself, extinguish the questions raised by Hon. Dr. Abiola Peter Makinde. Makinde maintains that he won the primary and that the subsequent alteration of the outcome was improper. These competing claims must be assessed against the original results, ward-level records, accreditation documents, collation reports and other relevant evidence. An administrative declaration establishes the party’s position; it does not automatically settle every legal question surrounding the process that produced it.
While the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) does not ordinarily conduct party primaries, its publication of a candidate’s name should not be misconstrued as a judicial determination of every dispute arising from the primary. Similarly, the NWC’s authority to administer party affairs does not confer unlimited discretion or place its decisions beyond the law. Party supremacy is not synonymous with absolute power. Where a party decision is challenged on legitimate legal grounds, the applicable rules, evidence and law must guide its determination.
Equally concerning is the attempt to portray the dispute as though it has been conclusively resolved by the party. The reported proceedings before the Federal High Court in Akure demonstrate why caution is necessary. A report published by Starnews on 13 October 2026 stated that the court had reserved judgment in the dispute between Hon. Dr. Makinde and Dr. Ajilo over the constituency’s APC ticket. Until the court’s decision is delivered and its legal implications established, it is premature to portray the controversy as judicially settled. The party’s administrative position and the court’s determination are distinct matters.
The argument that Makinde’s insistence on judicial redress demonstrates a lack of humility is equally unconvincing. Humility should not be defined as unquestioning acceptance of every administrative decision, just as seeking judicial interpretation should not automatically be characterised as arrogance or disloyalty. Every contestant is entitled to pursue lawful remedies where a legitimate grievance exists. The relevant consideration is whether the claim is supported by evidence and applicable law, and not whether its pursuit is politically convenient to another camp.
Furthermore, repeated references to votes across the constituency’s 22 wards cannot, without verifiable documentation, conclusively settle the dispute. The original results, accreditation records, collation documents and other admissible evidence must speak for themselves. If the initial outcome was validly determined and subsequently altered, the circumstances surrounding that alteration deserve scrutiny. Conversely, any claim that the review was justified must be substantiated by the relevant rules and evidence. Numbers must be verified, procedures must be lawful, and declarations must withstand scrutiny.
We agree that unity within the APC is essential, particularly as the party prepares for the 2027 general elections. However, genuine unity cannot be built by dismissing unresolved grievances or demanding that a contestant abandon a lawful challenge in the name of party loyalty. The party’s long-term stability depends on credible internal processes, accountability and respect for the rights of its members. Unity achieved through fairness is more sustainable than unity imposed through premature declarations of finality.
HAM Volunteers Movement therefore maintains that the dispute should be determined on its merits, guided by the evidence and the applicable law. Hon. Dr. Abiola Makinde’s claims should not be dismissed merely because the party leadership has adopted a different administrative position; equally, Dr. Ajilo is entitled to defend his position through lawful means. The objective should be a credible resolution, not personal attacks, political intimidation or competing declarations of victory.
The questions remain straightforward: What do the original records of the 15 May 2026 primary establish? What procedures and authority were relied upon in reviewing or altering the initial outcome? Were the applicable party rules and electoral laws followed? These are substantive questions that deserve answers through the appropriate legal process, not through press statements designed to project one side’s interpretation as an unquestionable conclusion.
We therefore urge all stakeholders to exercise restraint, avoid presenting disputed allegations as established facts and respect the judicial process. The APC’s interests are best served when internal disputes are resolved transparently, lawfully and credibly.
No contestant should be compelled to surrender a legitimate legal claim merely to demonstrate party loyalty, and no administrative decision should be treated as a substitute for judicial determination where the lawfulness of that decision remains contested. Let the evidence be examined, let the law guide the process, and let the court speak before anyone declares the controversy conclusively settled.
Signed:
Comr. Ayorinde ADETULA (Richblaq)
Media Manager,
HAM Volunteers Movement
28th October, 2026
