Dr Asue Ighodalo and the Price of Political Retribution

The recent dismissal of Dr. Asue Ighodalo’s election petition by the Court of Appeal signifies not only a legal development but a political struggle in a long-standing feud between two titans of Edo State politics: Governor Godwin Obaseki and Senator Adams Oshiomhole. The judgment reflects less on his personal credentials, the wishes of the voters, or his electoral popularity, and more on the enduring political vendettas that afflict Nigeria’s democratic landscape, where political scores are settled through a judicial system that is intended to uphold justice. Simply put, Dr. Asue Ighodalo became a casualty in conflicts he did not initiate. I will explain.

Fast-forward to the 2024 Edo State gubernatorial election cycle: Dr. Asue Ighodalo, a corporate lawyer without political baggage and a respected technocrat possessing an impressive résumé but limited political experience, emerged as the PDP’s candidate. He is believed to have the backing of Governor Godwin Obaseki. Thus, for many political observers, Dr. Ighodalo’s candidacy represented not merely a personal aspiration but a continuation of Governor Obaseki’s political legacy and an attempt to maintain control of the state's political machinery. This perception set the stage for a showdown – a retribution.  

To comprehend the full context, one must revisit the collapse of the alliance between Governor Obaseki and Comrade Adams Oshiomhole. In 2016, Oshiomhole, then Edo’s outgoing governor, endorsed Mr. Godwin Obaseki as his successor, leveraging his influence to secure Obaseki's victory against the PDP’s candidate, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu. However, by 2019, the alliance began to fracture. Governor Obaseki resisted Oshiomhole’s attempts to exert control over the state legislature, asserting his independence in a public manner that humiliated his former godfather and mentor.

The backlash was swift. Comrade Oshiomhole orchestrated Governor Obaseki’s exit from the APC, yet Obaseki, bolstered by the overwhelming support of Edo State voters, secured a second term under the PDP, handing his former mentor a rare defeat. That loss continues to be an open wound in Oshiomhole’s political career.

When Dr. Ighodalo emerged in 2024, he was not merely viewed as a candidate but as a symbol of Obaseki’s ongoing defiance. Now, as a Senator, Comrade Oshiomhole and his allies mobilised to ensure that Governor Obaseki would not prevail. The subsequent electoral loss and failed legal challenge suggest that Dr. Ighodalo was ensnared in a feud that he did not instigate and could not escape.  

The former governor, still nursing political wounds from his public fallout with Obaseki, saw in Ighodalo an opportunity to settle scores. He openly, gallantly, and unapologetically mobilised both federal power and political capital to secure Dr. Ighodalo’s defeat. This stems less from resentment towards Dr. Ighodalo himself, but more as a punishment for Obaseki’s earlier insubordination. I term this a casualty of sins he did not commit, and that’s the theme of this essay. But who benefits? Unraveling that is what this essay aims to explore.

In this battle of egos and entrenched interests, the democratic process becomes the first casualty. The rule of law, the impartiality of the judiciary, and the will of the electorate appear subordinated to the whims of power brokers. Dr. Ighodalo’s rejection by the appellate court is, therefore, emblematic of a deeper malaise: in Nigeria, electoral contests are frequently not determined at the ballot box or in courtrooms, but in the shadows of political strongmen.

Legally, the Court of Appeal ruled that Ighodalo failed to provide sufficient evidence of electoral malpractice. This aligns with an emerging pattern in Nigerian jurisprudence, where courts often impose an unreasonably high burden of proof on petitioners, necessitating documentation at the level of individual polling units. This near-impossible standard has led many to believe that in high-stakes cases, the courts are predisposed to uphold the status quo. Now, the threshold is unarguably strictly proof beyond a reasonable doubt - a standard used in criminal cases, not a preponderance of the evidence as in civil matters.  

Did the petitioner prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt? That is not the issue here. Was the election free and fair? No. Does the outcome reflect the wishes of the people? No. Were INEC and the State Security Forces complicit in defrauding the petitioner of his victory? Yes.  

Denying the petitioner and his agents access to the collation centre in Benin City is criminal per se. It undermines the validity of the final results. I was at Ramat Park in Benin City that evening, returning from Ishan, where we had gone to vote, so I witnessed this firsthand.

Dr. Ighodalo’s defeat is not merely a legal failure; it is symptomatic of Nigeria’s political decay, where justice is perceived as selective, and where candidates are evaluated not by merit or the voters' mandate but by the enemies they inherit.

What remains is a system in which individuals can be punished not for their actions, but for their affiliations. Dr. Asue Ighodalo is, in many respects, a scapegoat—a political novice ensnared in the crossfire of a long-standing feud between two men who once stood as allies.

In conclusion, democracy is sustained not only by elections and petitions but by trust in the fairness of the process. We may need to reiterate that: trust in the fairness of the process. That trust, I fear, is being eroded to extinction in our electoral processes. And that, more than any court ruling, my friends, should concern us all — TRUST IN THE SYSTEM. Until then, the fate of capable, credible technocrats like Dr. Ighodalo will continue to be determined not by their ideas or the electorate’s decision but by the grudges of godfathers and the retribution for wars they did not declare.

May 31, 2025

Disclosure: Barr. Alex Ehi Aidaghese (the author) comes from the same town as Dr. Asue Ighodalo. Nevertheless, the views he expresses here are entirely his own and are not influenced by their shared hometown or any form of tribal affiliation in any way. Adding to that, he is not a member of the People's Democratic Party (PDP).