A former member of the House of Representatives and constitutional lawyer, Hon. Kayode Oladele, has dismissed claims by former Ogun State governorship aspirant, Abayomi Hunye, that his participation in the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship nomination process automatically nullified an earlier suspension imposed on him by the party.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, Oladele argued that Hunye’s position was based on a misunderstanding of the APC’s disciplinary and screening procedures, stressing that screening for elective office and disciplinary actions are distinct processes handled by different organs of the party.
According to him, the key issue is not whether Hunye was screened and cleared to participate in the governorship primary, but whether there was a formal decision by a competent party organ lifting his suspension.
“The central legal question is not whether Hunye was subsequently screened or cleared. The relevant question is: when, how and by whom was his suspension lifted?” Oladele said.
He challenged Hunye to produce evidence of any appeal, resolution, review, or formal decision that reversed the suspension, insisting that such documentation would be necessary to establish that the disciplinary sanction had been set aside.
The APC has maintained that Hunye was suspended following disciplinary proceedings initiated in Tube Ward, Ipokia Local Government Area of Ogun State, and subsequently ratified through the party’s established structures.
Hunye, however, has argued that the party effectively waived the suspension by allowing him to purchase a governorship nomination form, undergo screening, secure clearance, and participate in the nomination process.
Oladele rejected that interpretation, stating that those actions could not be construed as reinstatement in the absence of a specific decision by an authorised party organ.
“A screening committee does not become a disciplinary appeal committee merely because a suspended member appears before it. If the argument is that the Screening Committee lifted the suspension, then it must first be established that the committee had the constitutional authority to review and reverse the disciplinary decision and that it actually exercised that authority,” he said.
He further explained that clearance by a screening committee only confirms that an aspirant met the requirements for participation in a particular nomination exercise and should not be confused with disciplinary exoneration.
“Electoral clearance and disciplinary exoneration are two different things. Clearance to participate in a primary does not necessarily mean that every disciplinary decision previously taken against the person has been reversed,” he added.
Oladele also dismissed suggestions that the APC had implicitly lifted the suspension by selling Hunye nomination forms and accepting his fees.
According to him, administrative actions cannot automatically be interpreted as constitutional decisions of the party, unless they clearly reflect a deliberate action by an organ empowered to review or terminate disciplinary sanctions.
“An administrative inconsistency does not necessarily amount to reinstatement. The crucial question remains whether a competent organ of the party consciously exercised its constitutional power to lift the suspension,” he stated.
The former lawmaker further stressed that Hunye’s participation in the governorship primary did not confer on him the status of APC governorship candidate.
He noted that screening, clearance and participation in a primary are only stages in the nomination process and do not amount to the award of the party’s ticket.
Oladele pointed out that the APC national leadership had already affirmed Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola, popularly known as Yayi, as the party’s governorship candidate after emerging victorious in the primary election.
He maintained that Hunye’s participation and eventual defeat in the contest could not confer on him any claim to the party’s governorship ticket.
Addressing concerns about the validity of the suspension itself, Oladele said Hunye was free to challenge the disciplinary process through appropriate internal party mechanisms or the courts if he believed due process was not followed.
However, he insisted that such a challenge was entirely separate from the claim that participation in the screening process automatically extinguished the suspension.
“If Hunye believes the original suspension was defective, that is an issue he may challenge on its own merits. But it does not follow that because he was subsequently screened, the suspension automatically disappeared. The two questions must not be confused,” he said.
Oladele maintained that the burden of proof rests on Hunye to demonstrate that his suspension was formally lifted.
“If a competent organ of the APC reviewed Hunye’s suspension and set it aside, the decision should speak for itself. If an appeal succeeded, there should be an identifiable outcome. If he was reinstated, there should be a decision reinstating him.
“Until such a decision is produced or the suspension is otherwise successfully set aside through the appropriate legal process, the party is entitled to maintain that the suspension remains subsisting.
“The position is simple: screening is not reinstatement, clearance is not disciplinary exoneration, and participation in a primary is not an appellate decision setting aside a suspension. If Hunye says his suspension has been lifted, let him produce the decision that lifted it,” Oladele stated.
