The controversy surrounding the expulsion of Barrister Azeez Oladapo Yusuf, popularly known as Ninolowo, from the All Progressives Congress (APC) has taken a fresh turn following comments by Barrister Damian Ajayi, a lawyer and public analyst, during an interview on Arise TV.
Speaking during the television interview, Ajayi offered his perspective on the controversy involving Ninolowo and former Agege Local Government Chairman, Chief Ganiyu Kola Egunjobi, particularly the argument over whether the two politicians were APC candidates or merely aspirants during the party’s nomination process.
Ajayi’s intervention has added another dimension to a dispute that has continued to generate questions within Agege, especially over the sequence of events surrounding the APC primary, the emergence of alternative names on the party’s candidate list and the eventual movement of Ninolowo and Egunjobi to the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
Ninolowo participated in the APC nomination process for Agege Constituency II and was reported as having emerged from the primary before the party subsequently presented another name as its candidate. It was at that point, according to the account being advanced by Ninolowo and his supporters, that the party unlawfully and wrongly substituted his name with that of another aspirant, who was subsequently presented as the APC candidate.
That development became the foundation of the political disagreement that eventually saw Ninolowo leave the APC and pursue his political ambition under the APM platform.
The APC has since argued that Ninolowo and Egunjobi were aspirants, not candidates, during its nomination process. But that distinction does not, on its own, answer the larger questions surrounding the disputed nomination, the subsequent change in the candidate list and Ninolowo’s reported resignation from the party.
Perhaps the most significant issue raised by the controversy is one that demands a clear answer from the APC itself:
Did the Lagos State chapter of the APC have the constitutional authority to expel Ninolowo after he had already resigned from the party?
Further, can a State Chairman or State Executive Committee validly expel a person who had already ceased to be a member of the party through resignation?
Ninolowo has maintained that he resigned from the APC in July 2026, weeks before the party announced his expulsion in September.
That chronology is critical
The APC Constitution contains detailed provisions governing discipline, sanctions, expulsion and appeals. It also establishes different levels of disciplinary authority within the party. Article 21 provides for disciplinary procedures subject to the Constitution and the right to fair hearing, while specific provisions address the organs empowered to impose particular sanctions.
The Constitution further provides that where expulsion of an Executive Committee member, political office holder or legislator is proposed, the matter is to be submitted to the National Executive Committee (NEC) under the relevant provision.
That makes the Ninolowo controversy worthy of a closer constitutional examination.
If Ninolowo had already resigned before the September expulsion announcement, what precisely was the legal status of the subsequent expulsion?
That is a question that cannot be answered merely through political statements.
It requires examination of the resignation letter, the date it was received, the response of the party, the date any disciplinary complaint was initiated, the organ that initiated it and the constitutional provision relied upon.
DID APC EXPEL A FORMER MEMBER?
This is where the controversy becomes particularly interesting.
The central argument being advanced on Ninolowo’s behalf is that a person who has already ceased to be a member cannot subsequently be expelled as though he remained a member, and that the APC State Executive Committee should not arrogate to itself powers reserved for the appropriate organs of the party.
The APC Constitution recognises resignation as a means by which membership can cease, while its disciplinary provisions establish procedures and different levels of authority for sanctions.
Consequently, the issue is not simply whether the APC has disciplinary powers.
The real question is whether those powers were properly exercisable against Ninolowo at the time the Lagos chapter announced his expulsion, assuming his July resignation is valid and properly documented.
That distinction is crucial.
STATE APC SHOULD READ ITS CONSTITUTION
The argument being advanced by critics of the expulsion is that the Lagos State chapter should carefully examine the APC Constitution before taking actions that could expose the party to unnecessary internal disputes or legal challenges.
The criticism is particularly focused on the allegation that the State Executive Committee may have acted beyond its constitutional remit by announcing Ninolowo’s expulsion after his alleged resignation.
In that regard, the appropriate question for the party leadership is not simply, “Why did Ninolowo leave?” It is – “What was his membership status when the expulsion decision was taken, and which organ of the APC Constitution authorised that particular action?”
Those questions are especially relevant because the APC Constitution provides for disciplinary processes, fact-finding and appeals, while also giving the NEC significant authority over final disciplinary matters in specified circumstances.
NINOLOWO’S CASE GOES BEYOND “ANTI-PARTY”
The attempt to reduce the controversy to “anti-party activity” may therefore leave out a significant part of the story.
Ninolowo’s case began with a disputed nomination process.
It continued with the emergence of another name as the APC candidate.
It was followed by his reported resignation in July.
He subsequently emerged under the APM platform and only afterwards did the APC announce his expulsion.
That chronology deserves to be examined in its entirety.
If Ninolowo’s resignation is authenticated and the relevant APC records confirm that it preceded the disciplinary action, then the party would have to explain the constitutional basis for subsequently treating him as an existing member subject to expulsion.
That is the legal and political question at the heart of the controversy.
DAMIAN AJAYI’S ARISE TV INTERVENTION
Barrister Damian Ajayi’s appearance on Arise TV has therefore opened a fresh conversation around the matter.
Rather than viewing the dispute solely through the lens of party politics, Ajayi’s legal perspective brings attention to the Constitution, the hierarchy of party organs and the importance of determining the precise point at which Ninolowo ceased to be an APC member.
The APC has every right to defend its nomination process and enforce its constitution.
Equally, questions surrounding the exercise of that constitutional authority deserve clear answers.
For a major national political party preparing for another electoral cycle, internal discipline and constitutional compliance are matters that should be handled with precision.
THE QUESTIONS APC MUST ANSWER
The controversy now leaves several questions on the table, when exactly did Ninolowo’s resignation take effect?
Did the APC receive and acknowledge his resignation before announcing his expulsion?
When did the disciplinary process against him commence?
Which APC organ initiated the process?
What specific constitutional provision authorised the final expulsion?
Was the matter referred to the appropriate national organ where required by the Constitution?
Why was another aspirant presented as the APC candidate after the disputed Agege Constituency II primary?
Until these questions are answered with documentary evidence, the Ninolowo story cannot fairly be reduced to a simple case of an APC member engaging in anti-party activity.
It is a much wider dispute involving nomination, substitution, resignation, membership status, disciplinary procedure and constitutional authority.
For Ninolowo and his supporters, the position is straightforward: they contend that he left the APC after what they regard as an unresolved and disputed nomination process, and that the subsequent expulsion therefore raises questions about the party’s procedure and authority.
For the APC, the issue remains one of adherence to its rules and the consequences of pursuing another party’s platform.
The facts, however, should be allowed to settle the argument.
The documents should speak. The Constitution should speak. The chronology should speak.
However, until they do, the controversy surrounding Ninolowo’s expulsion remains far from settled.
