The decision to withdraw petitions challenging the outcome of the 2026 Osun State governorship election has been described as a step that could spare the state prolonged political tension and reduce the financial burden of election litigation on the public purse.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kunle Adegoke, made the assessment on Thursday during an appearance on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, while discussing the implications of the withdrawal of petitions arising from the August 15 governorship election.
Adegoke argued that prolonged election disputes could place an entire state in a prolonged state of uncertainty, with the attention of political actors and the government diverted towards litigation rather than governance.
According to him, an elected governor facing a tribunal challenge may find it difficult to concentrate fully on administering the state because of uncertainty over the eventual outcome.
“When you go to the tribunal to challenge the result of an election, the entire state will be on the edge. You will discover that everybody, not only the elected governor or whomsoever, will be so shifty in terms of performance and what have you, because it doesn’t allow such an elected person to concentrate on the business of governance,” he said.
The SAN said the uncertainty generated by election litigation also affects ordinary citizens, particularly when political supporters begin to anticipate the outcome and tensions between rival camps escalate.
He warned that violent elements could exploit such divisions to attack supporters of opposing political parties.
“The same thing happens to the mass of the people who participated in the election. Everybody will be eager, will be pensive, expecting what will be the outcome of the tribunal. And you discover that violent elements will take that opportunity to be attacking one another, killing people, maiming,” Adegoke said.
He drew attention to previous election disputes in Osun, recalling the human and material costs associated with prolonged litigation.
“For the three and a half years that we were at the tribunal, people were being killed, people were being maimed, properties were being destroyed,” he said.
For Adegoke, that experience provides sufficient reason for political actors to consider the wider consequences of continuing electoral battles when a peaceful alternative is available.
He stressed that political violence rarely affects only those directly involved in political contests, arguing that ordinary citizens, particularly poorer members of society, frequently become the victims.
“The people that are being killed, the majority of them are poor people. So who did not have any grievance against one another until this political something came up?” he asked.
Beyond the security implications, Adegoke said prolonged election litigation also comes with significant financial costs for government.
He argued that maintaining election tribunals and ensuring the smooth administration of the judicial process requires public resources, which could otherwise be deployed to address pressing needs.
“Rather than even using taxpayers’ money, because for the tribunal to be maintained, for the process to go smoothly and what have you, it costs the government a lot of money. So we can avoid all this. You know, the economy has not been good enough,” he said.
While acknowledging that politicians have a legitimate interest in defending their political positions and principles, the SAN said the broader welfare of citizens should take precedence where continued litigation could deepen political divisions.
“We are fighters, and that is what we very enjoy also, when it is based on principles, when it is based on integrity and the protection of the interest of the masses, which is number one to us,” he said.
“But in this instance, we believe that in the interest of the masses, the polity will be better protected by us allowing this particular instance to just go by,” he added.
Adegoke further explained that the decision not to pursue the tribunal battle was partly informed by concern over possible reprisals against political supporters.
He said continuing the dispute could have created a cycle in which supporters of rival parties became targets of attacks.
“That’s why we decided not to go to the tribunal. We didn’t want to complicate things further. If we were at the tribunal now, you can imagine what would have been happening. They will be hounding our people. Our people will be attacking them,” he said.
The legal practitioner also condemned the use of violence in political participation, particularly where individuals resort to attacks while claiming to act in the interest of their political organisations.
Adegoke described such individuals as “hooligans who in the name of political participation resort to violence” and called for strict adherence to the law.
He also said government and political leaders must ensure that laws designed to protect citizens are effectively enforced.
“There are certain laws made to protect the interest of the people but which the government has not been implementing,” he said.
The SAN urged political office holders and aspirants to exercise restraint in their public conduct, stressing that those occupying public positions must understand the responsibilities that come with political leadership.
“The public office is not a place of our temper. It’s a place of decorum, of controlling one’s abilities, you know, to respond to issues. We shouldn’t let events around us dictate how we respond. We are the ones that must determine how we respond to issues and developments around us,” he said.
Reacting to concerns over a statement attributed to Senator Fadahunsi, Adegoke said he would not defend the comment, while noting that the senator had apologised and withdrawn the statement.
“I don’t want to justify the statement made by Senator Fadamsi. I’m not holding his brief. It’s a statement that has been wrongly condemned. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a seasoned politician,” he said.
Adegoke maintained that the ultimate responsibility of political leaders was to protect the lives and welfare of the people they seek to govern, irrespective of political affiliation.
“We want to govern the people, want to govern living beings, not corpses, not dead bodies. So to that extent definitely, the people that are going to be killed, whether in Accord or in APC, PDP or elsewhere, they are our brothers and sisters,” he said.
He added that even individuals regarded as violent should not be subjected to extrajudicial punishment, insisting that society’s responsibility should be to reform them.
“Some of them might be violent, some of them might be people of less desirable character, but we don’t have the mandate to sentence them to death. Ours is to aspire to reform them,” he said.
The discussion comes against the backdrop of the disputed aftermath of the August 15 Osun governorship election, which was won by Governor Ademola Adeleke, the Accord Party candidate, according to results declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
INEC declared Adeleke winner with 511,067 votes, while the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Bola Oyebamiji, polled 444,815 votes.
Petitions purportedly filed by the APC and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) were subsequently displayed at the Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal in Osogbo.
Both parties, however, denied authorising the petitions. The APC said its legal team, after consultations with Oyebamiji and party leaders, had decided against challenging the result in the interest of peace, while the PDP said its candidate, Adebayo Adedamola, had not authorised any legal challenge.
Adegoke said the withdrawal of the petitions should now provide an opportunity for Osun State to reduce the political temperature and redirect attention towards governance, economic development and the welfare of its people.
Leave a comment