The Dr. Ayodele Ayokunle Olusegun Campaign Team has noted comments attributed to Apostle Ayodele-Adesua during a radio interview, in which supporters seeking clarification on the omission of Dr. Ayodele Ayokunle Olusegun’s name from the INEC list for Ekiti South Senatorial District were reportedly described as “jesters” and portrayed as persons unfamiliar with the electoral process.
According to the statement by the team, ordinarily, such remarks would have been ignored. However, when political commentary is presented to the public as legal fact, it becomes necessary to place the law and the records before the people.
Consensus is a Valid Mode of Nomination Under the Law
The suggestion that a candidate cannot emerge through consensus because he was not physically present at a particular gathering does not reflect the Electoral Act, 2026.
Section 84(2) recognizes direct primaries and consensus as valid modes for nomination of candidates. Section 87 prescribes the procedure for consensus, including written consent of cleared aspirants and formal ratification by the party.
The relevant legal questions are therefore:
Was the recognized nomination process followed? Was the candidate duly produced by the party? Were the statutory documents submitted to INEC? Did the candidate withdraw?
These are questions that can only be answered by documents and party records.
On Withdrawal: Where is the Document?
Dr. Ayodele Ayokunle Olusegun has consistently maintained that he did not withdraw his candidature for Ekiti South Senatorial District.
Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2026 is clear on withdrawal: it must be in writing, signed by the candidate himself, accompanied by a sworn affidavit, and personally delivered to his political party, which shall convey same to INEC within the prescribed period.
If it is claimed that Dr. Olusegun withdrew, the simple question is: Where is the signed withdrawal notice and the sworn affidavit?
If no such document exists, the public is entitled to know on what basis his candidature was treated as withdrawn.
The Law Does Not Permit Arbitrary Substitution
Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 2026 provides that a political party shall not change or substitute a candidate whose name has been submitted under Section 29, except in the case of death or withdrawal by the candidate. In either case, the law requires a fresh primary to produce a replacement.
The proposition that a duly submitted candidate who neither died nor withdrew can be removed and replaced without more is unknown to Section 33. If any other legal basis is being relied upon, let it be disclosed publicly.
Dr. Olusegun’s Candidature Has a Documentary Trail
Dr. Olusegun’s candidature did not begin on social media. It has a verifiable documentary trail.
The NDC primaries and the affirmation of its legislative candidates for the 2027 general elections were widely reported, including by PUNCH on May 30, 2026, where the party unveiled its candidates for Senatorial, House of Representatives and State House of Assembly elections. The NDC itself has publicly defended its process as anchored on consultation, consensus-building and established party structures.
Dr. Olusegun’s name was duly processed and uploaded on the INEC candidate portal in line with party procedure.
INEC Provides a Remedy for Omission
Section 32(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026 anticipates a situation where a political party discovers that its candidate’s name is missing from INEC’s publication and prescribes a formal notification procedure with requisite signatures and affidavit within the stipulated timeline.
That is the lawful path – records, verification, clarification and correction where necessary, not insults or intimidation.
We Are Not Jesters; We Are Citizens Asking Lawful Questions
If asking where a duly nominated candidate’s name went makes us “jesters,” then we will continue to ask questions as responsible citizens.
We do not need insults to defend Dr. Olusegun. We need documents.
We need the party records.
We need the INEC records.
We need the nomination forms.
We need proof of any alleged withdrawal.
If it is claimed that Dr. Olusegun withdrew, let the document be produced.
If it is claimed that the party lawfully substituted him, let the legal provision and procedure be identified.
If it is claimed that his nomination is invalid for non-physical presence at a meeting, let the specific provision of the Electoral Act or NDC guideline mandating such presence be produced.
Our Position is Clear:
We did not withdraw our candidature;
We did not authorize anyone to withdraw on our behalf;
We will not be distracted by name-calling;
We will pursue this matter through all appropriate lawful and constitutional channels.
Dr. Ayodele Ayokunle Olusegun is not asking for special treatment. He is asking that due process be respected and that any contrary action be supported by law and verifiable documentation.
In a democracy, asking questions is not jesting. It is a civic duty.
