By Comrade Obasola David
Sola Ajisafe’s article is long on emotion, rich in hyperbole, but dangerously short on verifiable facts. It is a polemic dressed up as principle. Since he has chosen to structure his argument paragraph by paragraph, I shall respond in like manner, methodically, firmly, and without theatrics.
Ajisafe claims that the response of Kayode Ajulo, SAN, CON, and Idowu Ajanaku to Festus Adedayo left “many scratching their heads.”
To start with, Dr. Ajulo is not a transient political opportunist. He is a lawyer of national stature, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, and a member of the Inner Bar whose public record predates his present office by decades. His involvement in pro-democracy advocacy in Ondo State and beyond, spans over twenty years. For Ajisafe, nothing concrete can be said about his past, that is only noticeable in his servitude as domestic and errand boy of Mr Jimoh Ibrahim and his current political merchandise which he uses in exploiting their political sponsor in Abuja.
What truly leaves reasonable minds bewildered is the normalization of defamatory insinuations under the guise of journalism. When an Attorney-General warns against libel and describes certain writings as cyberbullying, that is not intimidation, it is a lawful and measured response grounded in constitutional democracy.
The office of the Attorney-General is not a spectator seat. It carries the duty to defend the integrity of governance, the people and the law. Ajisafe suggests that Dr. Ajulo “reaches for the hammer of law.” That metaphor trivializes the rule of law.
The right to seek legal remedy is fundamental. Free speech does not immunize falsehood. A Senior Advocate defending his reputation through lawful channels exemplifies constitutionalism, not repression.
If critics are confident in their claims, the courts remain open. Democracy thrives on lawful contestation, not media trials.
Ajisafe attempts to sanctify Adedayo’s article as a crusade for equity and justice while simultaneously alleging a “third-term agenda” against Lucky Aiyedatiwa.
Nigeria’s Constitution is explicit on tenure limits. To propagate a phantom third-term narrative without constitutional basis is political fiction. It is reckless to plant seeds of suspicion without evidence. Accountability must be fact-driven, not conspiracy-laden.
Ajisafe references incidents in Akure and Idanre, directly attributing blame to the Governor without judicial findings or investigative conclusions.
Allegations of murder and orchestrated violence are grave. They belong before security agencies and courts, not as declarative verdicts in opinion columns. Justice demands evidence, not emotional adjudication.
Ajisafe dismisses comparisons with former Lagos Governor Akinwunmi Ambode as “a stretch too far.”
Comparative governance analysis is not heresy; it is standard political discourse. Ondo State’s developmental trajectory cannot be reduced to sweeping labels like “least developed in the Southwest” without credible socio-economic metrics.
Projects across infrastructure, health, and institutional reforms are not invisible simply because critics refuse to acknowledge them.
The most egregious claim in Ajisafe’s article is his portrayal of Dr. Ajulo and Idowu Ajanaku as a “visitors” to Ondo State.
Let facts prevail over fiction.
More importantly, he was conferred about two decades ago during the during the administration of Dr Olusegun Again, with the prestigious chieftaincy title of Baamofin Lewe of the Akure Kingdom, an honour not bestowed on “strangers”. Traditional institutions do not decorate “visitors.” They honour sons of the soil who have demonstrated commitment, contribution, and cultural fidelity. Only last year, during his 10 years on the throne, the incumbent Deji of Akure, elevated Dr Ajulo, to the full position of Bamofin of Akure Kingdom.
Ajulo’s educational roots, family domicile, and investments cut across the three senatorial districts of Ondo State, Akure, Ondo, Okitipupa and his ancestry in Ifira-Akoko. His footprint is institutional, economic, and social. To describe him as a visitor is historically inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.
He towers above many of his contemporaries not merely by title but by sustained contribution.
Ajisafe descends into commentary about residences in Lagos, Abuja, or abroad. This is not argument, it is distraction.
Public service is not invalidated by mobility. Ondo sons and daughters have historically served nationally and globally while remaining rooted at home. To weaponize geography as a legitimacy test is parochial.
Ajulo’s roots in Ondo are not seasonal; they are generational.
Ajisafe accuses officials of silence. Governance, however, is not theatre. Security matters require investigation, not megaphone declarations.
Calls for calm, due process, and lawful inquiry are more responsible than inflammatory pronouncements capable of escalating tension.
The concluding portions of Ajisafe’s piece veer into prophetic ultimatums about clocks ticking and inevitable departures.
Nigeria is governed by constitutional order, not rhetorical countdowns. Political transitions occur through elections and judicial processes, not through emotionally charged essays.
Sola Ajisafe’s article is a study in partisan outrage. It weaponizes grief, speculation, and innuendo to paint a distorted portrait of governance and of Dr. Kayode Ajulo in particular.
History, however, is stubborn. It records contributions, honours, investments, and decades of pro-democracy engagement. It remembers that the Baamofin of Akure Kingdom is not merely a visitor but someone known and recognized by his people long before occupying the office of Attorney-General.
Criticism is welcome in a democracy. Falsehood is not.
Ondo State deserves robust debate, anchored in facts, not fiction.