Elections: The Federal Might Nonsense Must Stop! -FactualTimes Editorial

When elections are no longer mainly determined by the will of the people, democracy ceases to have any meaning. In Nigeria, a country in which political power is heavily centralised, the increasing influence of the federal government over the elections leads to serious doubts as to whether the nation is strengthening its democracy or is instead gradually weakening it.

It is not an issue that the Federal Government should play no role in elections, since federal institutions do have legitimate constitutional responsibilities, especially via the security agencies and national institutions; the problem arises when people believe that these powers are being used in a way that gives one political side an advantage over its opponents.

An election should be a contest between the candidates and not one between the political parties and the machinery of the Federal Government. If the power of the state ends up being greater than that of the ballot, then democracy is merely reduced to an appearance.

At the heart of this process is the Independent National Electoral Commission. INEC is supposed to plan and oversee elections and to carry out its responsibilities without showing partiality or bias. Because of that, its independence cannot consist only in the Constitution; it must be clear in every election it conducts.

The appointment of the Electoral Commissioners is something which merits serious consideration. The President appoints both the Chairman and the members of the Commission, provided that they are confirmed by the Senate and with the Council of State having been consulted. Even though this procedure is provided for in the Constitution, it all the same gives rise to concerns since the President is also a political figure whose party might be taking part in the elections.

Apart from that, INEC is legally independent is not enough; independence has to be evident in practice. Nigerians should be able to see an electoral commission which is capable of rejecting political pressure, disciplining officials who make mistakes, and carrying out an election even when the interests of powerful politicians are involved.

Unfortunately, the situation becomes more dangerous when it is seen that the political establishment which is running for office has an influence on the appointment of the electoral officials and on the conduct of the elections. No democratic system should put its electoral umpires in a position where their neutrality is continually in doubt.

There are ample reasons for concern regarding Nigeria’s electoral history. It has often been the case that the elections have been marred by accusations of interference, intimidation, the manipulation of the results and the misuse of the security agencies. Whether or not these allegations are ultimately proven or dismissed by the courts, they damage public confidence if not adequately dealt with.

For instance, the 2019 Rivers State election should be one that is not forgotten. After violence and disorder, INEC decided to suspend the electoral process in the state, and there were reports of serious accusations against political figures and members of the security forces. The fact that an election has to be suspended because the situation has become unsafe is a clear indication of the fragility of the democratic process.

Due to the peculiar nature of the situation, security agencies must exercise great care when involved in elections. Their role should be to safeguard voters, electoral officials, and the materials used in the process, not to decide which political party will win. If security personnel are seen as being used for the purpose of political intimidation, then people may come to fear voting or to participate freely.

Recall the 2018 Osun state governorship rerun is yet another significant instance. Since the election held on September 22 had been declared inconclusive, INEC arranged a rerun in seven polling stations where the votes in question could decide the outcome. Although the rerun resulted in a win for Gboyega Oyetola, the affair drew criticism from observers who expressed concern about alleged intimidation, restrictions imposed on access to the polling stations, and the behaviour of the security personnel.

The lesson to be drawn from Osun is not merely about who won the election. Security agencies should be deployed in order to protect voters, electoral officials and the materials in question, not with the aim of causing fear surrounding the ballot or of restricting legitimate participation. When their actions lead to allegations of intimidation or partisan interference, INEC must have the strength to assert its authority and to make sure that the security arrangements surrounding an election stay neutral.

The same rule holds true when it comes to collating the results. Once the citizens have voted, the electoral officials must be able to collate and declare the results without getting instructions from politicians or from other powerful people. The credibility of an election can be undermined at the collation centre even if the voting at the polling places has been fairly calm.

The 2014 Ekiti governorship election provides another important example of the controversy surrounding federal influence in elections. Following the poll, allegations emerged that federal security agencies were deployed in ways that favoured the PDP candidate, Ayo Fayose.

Former PDP secretary Tope Aluko later made detailed allegations about the deployment of soldiers and other security personnel, including claims that APC leaders were prevented from entering the state before the election. The allegations were contested, but the controversy itself raised a fundamental question: can an election be truly free when the coercive power of the Federal Government is perceived to favour one side?

There have also been accusations in connection with elections of electoral officials being given instructions by political parties while the results were being compiled. For example, In the 2023 Delta South senatorial election dispute, a witness told the court that the Warri South collation officer received a phone call during the collation process and subsequently cancelled a result that had already been entered, saying he had been instructed to do so.

The testimony was part of the evidence presented in the case and should not, by itself, be interpreted as proof that a politician or government official directed the officer. But the episode highlights why electoral officials must be able to conduct collation without fear or outside pressure. The ballot should be more powerful than a telephone call; electoral officers must not find themselves in a situation in which a phone call from a prominent political figure could affect the decisions that voters have already made.

To this end, Nigeria should be careful not to build a political culture where the federal power is seen as an electoral advantage. Once politicians come to the belief that holding control of the Federal Government gives them a sure advantage in elections, political competition changes from trying to win over voters to merely securing state power.

We believe this would is risky for all concerned and dent Nigeria’s democratic credentials. A governing party which uses the authority of the state to secure an electoral edge might win the election, but such a victory could result in a loss of public confidence and democratic legitimacy.

Similarly, an opposition party that thinks it cannot win unless it obtains federal power may also be led to seek power for its own sake.

We are of the opinion that the INEC should be strengthen to deliver its responsibilities without undue inference or intimidation. The way in which its members are appointed, the way it is funded, the manner in which it is administered and the measures taken to protect it from political interference should all be such as to enable Nigerians to have greater confidence in the idea that the Commission is part of the electoral process and not associated with the government that is in power at any given time.

We implore political parties to subject themselves to the discipline of democracy; they should not regard a loss in an election as the close of their political activities, and a victory in an election should not be seen as giving them the right to control the institutions which decide future victories. Instead, they should win by putting forward credible candidates and persuading voters, not by taking advantage of their proximity to government.

Since the Federal Government runs institutions that have a huge effect on the electoral environment, it has a greater duty than others. The government in power must realise that its responsibility during an election is not to ensure victory for its own party but to safeguard the conditions that allow every party to compete fairly.

We urge the police, the military and all other security agencies to protect the process by sticking to their responsibilities of providing security and not turn to Agents of destruction or compromised by carrying out directives capable of undermining the electoral process.

There also needs to be greater accountability following elections. Complaints regarding electoral interference should not vanish once the results have been announced. In cases where officials are accused of misconduct, there should be credible investigations, and where wrongdoing is found, suitable sanctions should be enforced.

The electorate also has a important duty. The Nigerians should call for transparency at every stage of the process, from voter registration and accreditation to voting, the counting and the announcement of the results. People should not give up their democratic rights just because a politician has greater financial or governmental power.

The 2027 elections offer Nigeria a chance to show that it has drawn lessons from the flaws of earlier elections. The Independent National Electoral Commission has to prove its independence by its actions, the security agencies must show themselves to be neutral, and political parties must recognise that electoral victory should result from the people and not from the machinery of government.

Electocracy is not just the occasional holding of elections; it is the guarantee that when citizens cast their votes, those votes are regarded as the basis of political authority. Once that guarantee is lost, elections may still be held, but the democratic character of those elections starts to vanish as a result.

The presidency has great power; so does the Federal Government and political parties as well. Yet in a democracy the people must be more powerful than all of them since their votes form the basis on which any legitimate government is built.