Ondo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr Kayode Ajulo (SAN), has publicly defended the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Joash Ojo Amupitan (SAN), against growing calls for his removal from office. The controversy stems from INEC's refusal to recognise a faction of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by David Mark, following a March 12, 2026, Court of Appeal judgment in Abuja. That ruling dismissed the Mark-led faction's appeal and ordered all parties to return to the status quo ante bellum regarding leadership recognition. Dr Ajulo affirmed that INEC's stance is constitutionally mandated, citing Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022, which require the commission to act in line with valid court decisions. He described attempts to pressure INEC into recognising a leadership without judicial backing as a threat to democratic order.
Ajulo stressed that judicial decisions are binding until overturned through due process, stating, "The courts have spoken and their decisions remain binding until set aside through due process. They are not mere opinions to be ignored when inconvenient." He accused the aggrieved faction of bypassing both party and legal procedures, then attacking institutions upholding the law. The Attorney-General called such actions dangerous, warning they could erode constitutional governance. "The rule of law is the backbone of any enduring democratic system," he said, adding that Prof Amupitan has acted professionally and without bias. Ajulo dismissed demands for Amupitan's resignation as intimidation tactics aimed at compromising INEC's independence.
Dr Kayode Ajulo's public intervention signals rare legal clarity in a political noise. His defence of Prof Joash Ojo Amupitan underscores that INEC's adherence to court rulings—not political preference—shapes electoral legitimacy. For Nigerians, this means that institutional actions rooted in law, not loyalty, are what shield democracy from manipulation. When a sitting Attorney-General invokes constitutional duty over party interest, it reaffirms that the law remains a check on power.
