A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kunle Adegoke, has said that the withdrawal of petitions challenging the 2026 Osun State governorship election will help protect peace and reduce the financial burden associated with prolonged election litigation.
According to him, continuing the legal battle could keep the state in political uncertainty, distract the government from governance and create conditions for supporters of rival political parties to become increasingly hostile.
He said this on Thursday during an appearance on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese Ijebu, Ogun State, while examining the implications of the withdrawal of petitions challenging Governor Ademola Adeleke’s victory in the August 15 governorship election.
According to him, taking an election dispute to the tribunal could place the entire state under tension because the uncertainty surrounding the outcome may affect both the government and the citizens.
Adegoke said an elected governor facing a prolonged legal challenge could become preoccupied with the dispute instead of concentrating fully on the responsibilities of governance. According to him, “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.”
The SAN said ordinary citizens were also affected because they would be left waiting for the outcome of the judicial process, while political supporters could become increasingly anxious. To him, such uncertainty could create opportunities for violent elements to exploit political divisions and attack supporters of opposing 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,” he said.
Adegoke recalled the experience of previous election disputes in Osun State, saying prolonged litigation had in the past been accompanied by violence and destruction of property. “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.
He said the experience should make political actors cautious about extending electoral disputes when there was an opportunity to prevent further tension and allow the state to focus on governance, maintaining that the consequences of political violence were rarely limited to politicians directly involved in an election, and that ordinary citizens often bear the greatest cost.
“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?” Adegoke asked, while also raising the financial implications of maintaining prolonged election litigation, saying public resources were required to support the tribunal process and related administrative arrangements.
“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. The financial argument was particularly important at a time when economic conditions remained difficult for many citizen”.
The SAN acknowledged that politicians were naturally inclined to fight for their political interests, particularly when they believed that principles were involved. Said he: “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.
However, Adegoke said the circumstances surrounding the Osun election required a different consideration because of the wider interest of the people. “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.
