By Dr Ehogie-West Idahosa, SAN

My duty today is to speak about anchoring Nigeria’s democracy on electoral integrity. Like many nations of the world, Nigeria supposedly embraced democracy even before its independence. It is logical to assume that Nigeria’s early encounter with democracy may be associated with its relationship with Great Britain, which was its colonial master.

 

It would also appear that the inherent geo-political dissimilarities within the geographical space called Nigeria polluted Nigeria’s prototype democracy from inception. Differences in culture, tribe, religion and affinities nurtured the tree of desperation amongst Nigeria’s founding fathers and their political alleluia followers. It was therefore not a surprise that even in our nation’s pre-independent era, signs of election manipulation had taken root in our geopolitical space. Nowamagbe Omoigui, MD, MPH, FACC in his article circulated online on 29^th August, 2025 and titled, BENIN AND THE MIDWEST REFERENDUM OF 1963, had this to say;

“Local government elections took place in Benin on 17^th May, 1958. The manipulation of postelection council nominations made it possible for the Action group to dominate the council although the party did not win the elections”.

Omoigui further accused the Action Group of manipulating the voters Register in Benin province in 1959 and that enabled them to win 15 out of 30 seats in the Western House elections of 1960 in what was widely regarded as an unusual upset

My reference to Omoigui’s work is to establish the notion that election irregularity predated Nigeria’s independence in our country. There is no need to dwell much on what democracy really means as we all have some clear ideas about what we understand democracy to mean. The cheering news is that the widest definition of democracy was given by a practicing politician, lawyer and president of the United States on 19^th November, 1863. On that day at a place called GETTYSBURG, the tall, lanky and erudite political philosopher king, called Abraham Lincoln addressed his nation in commemoration of the three day battle of Gettysburg where about 51,000 soldiers were killed during the American civil war which broke out largely because Abraham Lincoln kept his campaign promise of declaring the slaves of the American confederacy free. It was in salute to the thousands of Soldiers who died to free our forbearers, who formed the vast majority of slaves at that time that Lincoln issued the following immortal words;

“That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth”.

As democracy spread round the world, Lincoln’s definition became the model adopted by most nation states in varying degrees arising from the third and fourth waves of democratization around the world.

However, Jack Lively known for his democratic theory and his book written in 1975, titled “Democracy” postulated that Abraham Lincoln’s conceptualization of democracy as the “government of the people, by the people, for the people” would only be meaningful and realistic when the people are allowed to vote periodically to elect political leaders who would run their affairs in a transparent and credible manner. Claude Ake, a famous Nigerian political scientist added credence to this proposition when he argued in his 2001 work known as Democracy and Development in Africa that it is the opportunity given to people to elect their government in free and fair electoral contest that has fundamentally elevated democracy to a preferred option over and above other forms of government.

That brings me to the question; where does Nigeria stand in the trajectory of global democracy? West-Idahosa in his Book titled; Separation of Power and Democracy in contemporary Nigeria (2010) classified Nigeria’s democracy as follows;

Nigeria’s presidential democracy has clearly given way to what Robert Fatton describes as “presidential monarchy” in his work, predatory Rule: state and civil society in Africa. Fatton maintains that in a “presidential Monarchy”, state apparatuses nurture the cult of the president’s personality by “Imparting to it supernatural power and unlimited knowledge. His presence is felt everywhere; he is the father of the nation to whom filial respect is always due”.

West-Idahosa further argues that in place of democracy, the federating Nigerian state practices a combination of “blind Oligarchy” (the government of a few elites by themselves for their interest) at the Centre and “Governocracy” (the government of the people by the governors for the governors) at the state level. According to Sam Amadi, a brilliant law teacher and public Affairs pundit, “there is so much sloganeering about democracy and democratization in Nigeria even when the values that underline a democratic society are in paralysis.

There are a number of factors that have kept Nigeria’s democracy in the abyss of throwbackism. I will attempt to summarily discuss a few.

UNILATERAL APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) BY THE PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA;

By the provisions of section 154 (1) of the constitution of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria (as altered), the president of Nigeria is vested with powers to appoint the Chairman and members of INEC subject to confirmation by the senate. Section 154 (3) provides that the president shall consult the council of state before appointing the chairman or members of INEC.

However, section 157(1) & (2) of the same constitution provides that the president can remove the Chairman or members of the commission acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the senate praying that such officer be so removed for inability to discharge the function of the office arising from infirmity of the mind or body or for misconduct. In reality, the president is in complete control of INEC as an election management Body (EMB). Regardless of the mention of the requirement of consultation with the council of state or by an address supported by two-third majority of the National Assembly in the constitution, none of those requirements is difficult for the president to achieve.

There is no real obstacle to a president determined to interfere with the work of INEC for his benefit or that of his political party. The council of state is chaired by the president himself by the provisions of the third schedule, part I B, paragraph 5. Other members of the council of states include the vice-president, former presidents or heads of Government, former chief justices, senate president, speaker of the House of Representatives, Governors and Attorney General of the Federation.

The composition of the said council is such that the constitution requires the president to consult with himself and a few persons within his influence and control. Appointment of chairman and members of INEC is therefore a tea party for the president who by such appointments violates one of the twin pillars of natural justice, “nemo judex in causa sua” (no man shall be a judge in his own case). Where the president is running for election or his political party is involved in other elections, what is the hand made INEC expected to do in such circumstances prevailing in Nigeria, where high public officials are stronger than Government institutions and are seemingly above the law?

The punishment for insisting on doing the right things or faithfully serving public interest may amount to a removal on the guise of misconduct. Which senate will challenge the president by refusing to approve a removal request? Certainly not the type of persons who constitute the majority of senators in today’s Nigeria. We all know this.

INEC APPOINTEES AND THE CHALLENGE OF INTEGRITY AND NEUTRALITY; 

With the greatest respect to most of the appointees of INEC, the challenge of neutrality and integrity has been a recurring decimal. In the fourth Republic so far, my view is that only Late Hon. Justice Ephraim Akpata (formerly of the supreme court) and late Dr. Abel Guobadia had the strength of character to serve as INEC’s Chairman from 1998-2000 and 2000-2005 respectively. Under their leadership, INEC conducted elections which produced substantially accepted outcomes. These men met the threshold of non-partisanship and unquestionable integrity which are constitutional requirements to be appointed as chairman or member of INEC as provided by third schedule, part I F, paragraph (2)(a) of the 1999 constitution.

In support of my contention, it is on record that less than 5 petitions or thereabout were filed against the elections conducted by the Hon. Justice Akpata led INEC, while about 560 petitions were filed against elections conducted by Dr. Guobadia’s led INEC. Since their said tenures, the credibility of INEC conducted elections has declined with each election. For example, 1,679 election petitions were filed following the general elections of 2019, while 1,996 petitions were filed following the general elections of 2023. The astromical increase in the number of petitions reflect a growing dissatisfaction with the way INEC conducts election in Nigeria.

The collateral damage that the poor conduct of elections has occasioned is that the percentage of voter turnout in Nigeria’s General Elections is on the decline. Voters best performance in terms of meeting the civic responsibility of voting occurred in 2003, when about 69.08% of registered voters turned out. In 2007, 57.54% percent of registered voters turned out. The figure went down to 53.68% in 2011. In 2015 43.65% of the registered voters turned out. This figure decreased to 34.75% in 2019 and it got to an all time record low, when it hit 26.72% in 2023.

There is a strong correlation between the appointment of non-partisan persons with strong integrity as chairman and members of the election management body and the credibility of the result of an election. It is clear from the analysis given above that the more credible election elicited lesser election outcome complaints, while the less credible elections reflected the “common features of fraud and irregularities masterminded by overzealous political charlatans and hatched by an unreliable electoral umpire”, according to Samuel Udeala in his work; Building legitimacy in Democratic process through Electoral Reforms: prognosis and prospects.

Still on integrity, the danger of a biased umpire as head of an election management Body, is that he can manipulate the organization of the body to suit the predetermined sympathies of such body to achieve the goals in favour of the preferred beneficiary of the election. Edwin Kiagbodo Clark, a man who spent his 95 years on earth meaningfully and who remained a nationalist and patriot till he transited to eternal life gave an account of his experience with the Professor Jega lead INEC during the 2015 general elections in Nigeria. Papa Clark in his book titled; “Brutally Frank” stated at page 421 as follows;

“The first evidence of Prof Jega’s insidious intention was to craftily reorganize the management structure of INEC so as to strengthen his firm hold onto power. The secretary of the commission then, Alhaji. Abubakar Kaigama, was due for retirement. He should have been succeeded by the most senior Director at the time, Miss Regina Omo-Agege from Delta state. Prof. Jega instead stood down Alhaji Kaigama’s retirement and extended his tenure to function at the expense of a southern replacement, which in his thinking could become a cog to the smooth implementation of `his invidious plans. Second, Prof Jega reportedly redeployed the only three southern Directors in the commission to INEC Electoral institute, a clear scheme to eliminate southern opposition to whatever strategies he had perfected to implement. Dissenting member of the trio was reportedly advised to go on voluntary retirement.

Apart from the internal manipulation of INEC structures, a vast majority of its staff across board are unrepentant hustlers who seek out political leaders on their own in order to strike election deals with them. Agreement are often reached on posting of such staff from one department to another to position them strategically to deliver on such unholy compromises with politicians at the expense of electoral integrity of the nation and the consequential dwarfism perennially suffered by Nigeria’s democracy. Who amongst us has not seen live videos and pictures of INEC permanent and Ad-hoc staff carrying out despicable thump printing on desolate ballot papers at various poling units regardless of the presence of security operatives? Is there any one here who does not know about fictitious results wholly manufactured on INEC result sheets even in areas where elections were cancelled by the same body. Who are those who release alternative set of results sheets to favoured political parties to enter imaginary results into such sheets even when a different set of result sheets are released to polling units and collation centers on election day?

Who are those that complete INEC Form 40G to show that election was cancelled due to violence in a polling unit where voting was peacefully conducted? There is no question about who the real official saboteurs are, as far as the unenviable Nigerian election paradigm is concerned. Not even highly placed persons called upon to serve as INEC returning officers from University communities can resist the lure of turning water into wine, once they collect their share of the instrument of magic (according to Fela Anikulapo Kuti of blessed memory) There is a latin aphorism which says “Radix malorum est cupiditas” which means greed is the root of evils. Some of the staff of INEC who are involved in these election “skelewu” are paid even by the commission.

Why would a university professor, for example, be engaged in fraudulently manipulating election result? Why would such a professor allow his dignity to be lost just because of a mindless excessive attachment to material wealth? In Peter Ikot Ogban v. INEC, Appeal: No: CA/C/204C/2021, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of Prof. Peter Ogban for fraudulent manipulation of election result, announcement of fake result in Etim Ekpo and Oruk Anam LGAs of Akwa Ibom State North West Senatorial Election result in favour of a given candidate on 24^th February, 2019. This is what justice Jospeh Oyewole, J.C.A said at page 27 of the said judgment;

It seems to me that the Appellant despite his standing as a University Professor did not appreciate the enormity of his crime. Elections form the bedrock of any constitutional democracy and at every electoral circle, the nation spends huge amounts of money that could have gone into developmental projects in conducting elections. It is therefore fundamental that every gatekeeper in the electoral process stands effectively at their duty post to ensure credibility of the elections. That the very important role of serving as returning officer for the Akwa-Ibom North Senatorial district was assigned to the Appellant was a huge public trust which he ought to have discharged conscientiously. Giving the Appellant an option of fine would have only amounted to his being given a slap on the wrist which would have been totally improper in the circumstances. The Appellant was therefore undeserving of any leniency if the right message of deterrence is to be sent to the society. 

I admire the words of the learned Judge. They captured the predicament of public morality in Nigeria in nearly all areas of our national life. We urge INEC and the security agencies to rise up to the duty of arresting and prosecuting other appointees like Prof. Ogban who litter our electoral space with poisoned chalice hoping to strike at the heart of our constitutional democracy like a black mamba for a mere loaf of bread. Ironically, in one of ASUU’s recent protest, one of the banners lifted high read as follows; “professors retire into poverty, is this your gratitude?”.

Professors and other categories of public servants may continue to retire into poverty because a few of them help to rubbish our electoral space by preventing our votes from counting. If votes don’t count, there is no obligation on the part of elected public officials to honour their contract with the people. They know that with or without majority votes, elite betrayers in the public and private sectors would continue to perforate our electoral web to rob it of integrity and turn INEC into an institutional yo-yo incapable of credible deliverables with respect to the conduct of national elections. 

IS IT TRUE THAT INEC’S SHORT COMINGS ARE FUELED BY WEAK LEGAL  FRAME WORK AND LACK OF FINANCIAL AUTONOMY AS CONTENDED BY SOME; 

The Justice Uwais Committee set up by Late President Musa Yar-Adua made several recommendations on measures to be taken in a bid to ensure the credibility of the electoral process in Nigeria. The former chief Justice of Nigeria and erudite judge identified weakness in the constitutional and legal frame work, lack of financial autonomy and administrative independence of INEC, absence of intra-party democracy and the atmosphere of impunity that is prevalent in the political space of Nigeria. I agree with his lordship of blessed memory that the constitutional provision in respect of INEC is weak. My agreement is only to the extent that the mode of appointing the Chairman and members of the Electoral Commission does not allow for independence in the discharge of their duties. I have earlier dealt with this issue in this presentation. I believe that the establishment law of INEC has received significant modernization in terms of making adequate provisions for pre-election matters, including registration of voters, review of voters register, submission of party candidates, conduct of actual election, creation of election offences and punishment, definition of grounds for challenging an election and establishment of election tribunals.

However, there are areas of the law that require improvement. Section 64(4), (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act which provides that votes stated on collated result sheets should be correct and consistent with the votes or results recorded and transmitted directly from polling unit, require further elaboration and fortification in the Electoral Law. There is no specific provision in the law describing where the votes from the polling units should be electronically transmitted to. This must be made clear in the law. For example, are such votes to be transmitted to electronic dash board in defined locations and ordinarily accessible to the public without going through the oracle box known as INEC Website? What should happen where there is a glitch as allegedly claimed by INEC in 2023? Which National technology infrastructure would be statutorily mandated to collaborate with INEC in developing a national technology architecture capable of transparent and neutral transmission of a minimum of 90% real-time results?. These are some of the areas that the statute must cover and the consequences for sabotage prescribed in such law.

I do not think that INEC is underfunded. In my view it has received more than enough funds to do a thorough job over the years. In support of this contention, I would rely on the figures provided by Clifford Ndujihe who is the politics Editor of Vanguard in its online publication of 13^th September, 2025. The newspaper stated that Nigeria has spent about N949.47 billion or $4.023.47 Billion on elections in 24 years. From the figures made available, it is clear that the number of election petitions increased significantly in 2019 and 2023 inspite of the huge funding received by INEC in the years under reference. The breakdown is as follows;

 

YEAR	COST OF ELECTION	ELECTION PETITIONS	EXCHANGE RATE (N to $)
1999	N32 Billion or $1.46 Billion	2	21.89
2003	N55 Billion or $83.965 Million	560	114
2007	N74.2 Billion or $618.333 Million	1290	120
2011	N99.7 Billion or $664.667 Million	732	150
2015	N122.9 Billion or $646.842 Million	560	190.16
2019	N242.2 Billon or $794.098 Million	1697	305
2023	N355.298 Billion or $815.475 Million	1996	435.7

 

In contrast, Pakistan with a population of 253 Million people spent $164.5 Million for its 2024 elections compared to $815.475 Million spent by Nigeria in 2023. Bangladesh with a population of 176 Million spent $21.3 Million on its election in 2024. Many believe that Nigeria’s election is so expensive due to corruption, do or die attitude of desperate politicians who destroy electoral materials that must be replaced, difficult terrain and consequential logistics. INEC itself has been very wasteful. In 2019, INEC invested heavily on servers which were eventually not used during the polls. In 2023, INEC spent a humongus amount of money to acquire electronic equipment to enhance credibility of the polls. In the end, alleged glitches led to the inability of the body to transmit the results in real time as promised in most areas. BVAS were said to have mal-functioned to the extent of pooh-poohing the credibility of the 2023 polls across the nation.

A country that seldom punishes electoral offenders is legitimizing the commission of election offences. The provisions of Sections 114-129 of the Electoral Act of 2022 contain the definition and punishment for various offences. The puzzle is why the authorities lack the political will to prosecute a significant number of election offenders engaged in the commission of various election offences. It has been suggested that the political elites betray the need for electoral integrity by rewarding election offenders with non-prosecution for doing their bidding. Otherwise, many should rot in jail for undermining the nation’s democracy and causing it incalculable pains, including stunting its economy and the consequential decline in the quality of life of the average Nigerian.

GOING FORWARD 

It is nearly impossible to have electoral legitimacy without electoral integrity which is key to a credible electoral process. Electoral integrity is more than mere absence of election fraud and institutional manipulations. It extends to putting solid electoral legal framework, rules and guidelines that are globally acceptable in place. Electoral integrity means, transparency, inclusivity, professionalism, honest engagement with stakeholders like candidates of political parties, voters, the media, civil society, security community and policy actors across board to arrive at acceptable electoral standards from which no derogation is permitted.

The whole idea of pursuing electoral integrity IS to ensure that electoral umpires like INEC would remain unbiased and transparent when carrying out their statutory functions such as registration of voters, conduct of election and re-call of legislators. INEC’s neutrality is key to electoral legitimacy which is the principle that legitimate votes should produce legitimate results in such a way that the procedures through which elected officials assume power are constitutional and conform with the rule of law. To ensure this, certain areas of our election paraphernalia should be reviewed.

The mode of constitution of the top level officials of INEC is overtly susceptible to state capture. I dwelt on this earlier. It is not that the appointment of the commission’s Chairman and members by the President is strange in other climes, the problem with Nigeria is the penchant for elected public officials to abuse power and breach the law without consequence. This is why former United States President, Barrack Obama during his visit to Accra, Ghana in 2010, advised Africa nations to embrace the sustenance of “strong institutions NOT Strong Men”. In South Africa, the President appoints five Commissioners to the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) on the recommendation of Parliamentary Committee with input from all parties pursuant to Section 9 of its 1996 Constitution. But the political transparency culture does not permit anyone to interfere with the electoral process. That is why the African National congress (ANC) lost its majority in parliament in 2024 in full glare of the whole world. The election dashboards beamed the results to the admiration of envious Nigerians wishing that they had such transparent electoral system in their Country.

However, I am of the view that the Canadian model of constituting Election Management Body (EMB) would be better for a country like Nigeria. The election body in Canada is headed by a Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) who is appointed by resolution of parliament for a 10-year non-renewable term. Its structure emphasizes non-partisanship. The CEO cannot hold political office for seven years post-tenure and staff are barred from partisan activities. This is in contrast with INEC’s model with shorter renewable terms which is an invitation to reappointment pressures and consequential compromise. The Canadian method preserves electoral integrity, transparency and credibility due to the nature of appointment which flows from the people themselves through the parliament and the conditions for service.

The political finance system in Nigeria is nothing more than a slogan. The political parties have no spending limits in reality. They bribe in assorted currencies within their parties and outside it. The financial abuse championed by political party overlords due to desperation to acquire political power by all means is the harbinger of the pervasive all round corruption in the political space. How can party overlords who have received gratification, check a rampaging elected governor who “settled” them in order to secure party nomination? How can the police stop vote buying on Election Day when such officers serve as transaction agents? How can INEC officials resist bribes during elections, when their superior officers have appropriated monies voted for payment of their duty tour allowances (DTA)?

The provisions of Section 87 and 88 of the Electoral Act, 2022 dealing with limitation on election expenses are decorative and given no effect whatsoever. For example Section 88(2) says that the maximum expenses of a presidential candidate shall not exceed N5billion. Section 88(3) limits governorship candidates to N1billion and so on. Is this true in Nigeria? I think we all know the answer. So let the election management body do its job. The need to instill financial sanity into our electoral space is imperative. If we cannot do this, then we are wasting our time. Politics has become the quickest way to engage in money laundering as all sorts of income find its way into the political arena to buy power in order to perpetuate official corruption and remain above the laws of our land.

The prosecution of election offenders is a key requirement for INEC to successfully conduct transparent elections. Unless this is taken seriously, politicians and professional election miscreants would have no fear of the law with respect to election malpractices. They would continue to violently disrupt elections where they know they would not win. They would destroy INEC gadgets at such polling units as well as beat up innocent voters who turned up to perform their civic duties. Although Section 145 of the Electoral Act vest powers on INEC to prosecute election offenders through legal officers who work with IINEC or legal practitioners to be appointed by it, yet this assignment appears too overwhelming for INEC. It does not have the man power and cannot pay enough private legal practitioners to reduce the burden of its legal department staff. There is need to work in synergy with the Federal Ministry of Justice and the office of the Federal Attorney General to leverage the provisions of Section 174 of the Constitution which entitles the Federal Attorney General to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court. This may help to fasten the prosecution of election offenders nation wide.

Some experts have also advocated for the Police to join in the prosecution of election offenders using qualified legal practitioners in the police under Section 66(1) of the Police Act, 2020. The only question that many are asking is whether you can put out an inferno by pouring kerosine on it. In light of this, several scholars have opined that the Police should be left out of this as several election offenders are police officers of various ranks. Police as an institution require behavior modification to align with electoral integrity.

Electronic transmission of results remain cardinal to the neutrality and transparency required from INEC. I have dealt with this earlier. I only need to add that INEC needs to improve their voting technology. Countries like Brazil, India, South Africa and Namibia are already using E-Voting. They have moved from just electronic accreditation of voters to direct recording electronic system, electronic ballot papers etc. Transmission of results on real-time basis to electronic dashboards to be viewed by all is a non-negotiable minimum for votes to count in Nigeria. If we cannot achieve this, then votes would not count and it would be mere business as usual regardless of the presence of domestic and international election observers/monitors during election. They cannot tell a different story from what they have witnessed. Their previous reports have been damning.

According to Ade Okeaya-Inneh, SAN, in his work; The Adjudicatory Process and the Survival of Democracy (2010), democracy cannot thrive or be sustained unless the judicial arm of Government rises up to its responsibility of interpreting the laws in accordance with the true spirit and letters of the law. The Learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria emphasized that the Court being the tool of the judiciary is the rudder upon which surely democracy must and should be kept afloat. Has the judiciary helped the growth of democracy in Nigeria? The perception of the majority of the Nigerian people about the judiciary in general has plummeted deeply. Many now believe that dominant political elites have entered into worrisome alliances with certain elements in the judiciary, making it easy for questionable election results to receive a stamp of judicial approval. The frequent upholding of elections arising from despicable election processes has further emboldened anti-democratic elites to snatch popular mandates won by others and run away with it. It has become common for such looters of votes to challenge their victims to go to Court. Indeed, there is despair in the political space as many voters are at a cross road about whether it is worth their time to cast their votes in future elections due to what some experts have described as the judicialization of democracy. The judiciary is urged to live up to their calling as the defender of democracy and lift up the lamp of substantial justice, so that the entire nation can truly follow the pathway to public opinion democracy.  

CONCLUSION     

Without our votes counting, there would be no “uhuru” in the political governance horizon of Nigeria and accountability by public officers would remain a mirage. The quality of life would continue to decrease and authoritarianism may hover around the geopolitical space that we occupy.

Our global image may cascade as emigration would increase, insecurity may hit the roof and economic growth may be too insignificant to cushion the weight of over 230 million people.

It is only when our votes count that we can truly stand in brotherhood as a nation even when “tribe and tongues differ”.

God bless Nigeria! 

Thank you for your time.

Dr. Ehiogie WEST – Idahosa a Lawyer is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN