Editorial

Nigeria’s Electoral Best Buy

Published

5 years ago

March 15, 2021

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has said that it would use the 2023 General Elections to set the standard for future polls in Nigeria. Its Chairman, Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu, was reported to have given the assurance during a meeting with Resident Electoral Commissioners (RECs) at the INEC Headquarters in Abuja, last Monday.
It would be recalled that the INEC boss had, in an earlier interview with journalists on the sideline of the 2021 budget defence at the House of Representatives, late last year, announced that his Commission intends to introduce an electronic voting method in the country; possibly beginning with the Anambra governorship election this year.
From the foregoing, it is clear that INEC is positioning to deepen the present secret ballot arrangement in Nigeria even as there are almost daily indications that this voting system is beginning to suffer hiccups in the very industrial democracies from which we copied it.
For instance, the 2016 presidential election in the United States was widely suspected to have been electronically altered by offshore manipulators (principally from Russia) to favour the erstwhile Republican president, Donald Trump. Again, in 2020, it was the latter who reportedly trumped up charges of voting irregularities by members of the Democratic Party to oust him from the White House.
After many elections since its introduction in Nigeria, INEC is yet to come to terms with the smartcard readers’ hit-and-miss functionality for which reason the so-called voter’s Incidence Form has become a permanent appendage to our balloting process. And now, they want to push it a notch higher by introducing the electronic voting machine.
Some reliable sources have it that the 2015 and 2019 General Elections may have cost the government an average of N250 billion. If we add what the political parties spent in preparing for those elections, the figure may well rise to over double this amount. This is even exclusive of the cost of re-runs and post-election litigations (to defend the victorious president and state governors).
But why are Nigerians so bent on the continuous exploration of this costly and stressful electoral path? Shoes, they say, have their sizes; it is left for the buyer to identify and purchase his size. As far as republican systems go, Nigeria can be likened to a 10-year old who opts to choose size-42 shoes because that’s exactly what most of his adult friends wear. In other words, the world’s poverty capital is not yet ripe for the kind of electoral system she is spending so much money attempting to practise.
Available literature show that Australia practised the open ballot electoral system until 1856, Britain 1872, Switzerland 1872, Canada 1874 and Belgium 1877. If we juxtapose this with when these nations were formed, then we can begin to understand how long it took them to build and develop the technology and political culture that enabled a transition to the electronic secret ballot system they enjoy today.
In Nigeria, it is said that the open ballot system was in practise until 1923 when the British colonialists first introduced the secret voting method. The former system was mainly adopted by town unions to elect their officers.
But even as the system was not new to Nigeria, it took the radical introduction of Option A4 in the 1993 General Elections by the Chairman of the then National Electoral Commission of Nigeria (NECON), Prof. Humphrey Nwosu, for many voters in the country to appreciate the nature of the open voting process.
The presidential election of that year which was widely presumed to have been won by Chief MoshoodAbiola of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) against Alhaji Bashir Tofa of the National Republican Convention (NRC) is still regarded as the freest, fairest, safest and most transparent in the country, so far. But even so, it was later annulled by the then military junta led by General Ibrahim Babangida.
In a nutshell, Option A4 simply required registered voters to present themselves at their polling units within the specified time on Election Day for accreditation, after which the voter could choose to go back home or hang around until the appointed voting time. Once it was time, an announcement was made by an authorised election official for accredited voters to form a queue in front of the posters bearing symbols of their choice political parties. This would go on for a while until it was time for voters’ counting when security agents took up positions behind the last voter on each line.
Counting of voters was usually shouted aloud and keenly watched by other election officials, security men, party agents and even the queuing voters themselves. If well conducted, the entire exercise could be over in less than four hours (usually between 8:00 am and 12:00 noon).
Other advantages of this voting option are that it eliminates the use of ballot papers; eliminates double voting; eliminates voided votes due to irregular thumb printing; produces instant and credible results; eliminates ballot snatching; discourages double standards; reduces incidence of waiting for late arrival of officials and voting materials as the RAC centres will have little to distribute. Its transparency and credibility also attract less litigation and the attendant costs, thereby releasing judicial officers to attend to other equally important court cases.
On the other hand, its critics are always quick to fault it as outdated and capable of resulting to intimidation by unforgiving politicians whose agents may be wont to point out any unfaithful party member and other sell-outs. It may also lead to bandwagon voting as some undecided voters are unlikely to openly identify with any scanty queues. Again, the system may not readily lend itself to diaspora voting as is currently being encouraged.
Indeed, if this homegrown voting arrangement had emanated from Ghana, Kenya or Rwanda, Nigerians would have embraced it wholeheartedly.
On the whole, defenders of Option A4 (including self) are of the opinion that the standard established by Prof. Nwosu in 1993 should be revisited and improved upon if Nigeria must achieve free, fair, credible and cost-effective polls, going forward.

Editorial

Charge Before New Rivers Council Helmsmen

Published

5 days ago

September 29, 2025

The Tide

On the 30th of August, Rivers people trooped out to participate in local government elections conducted across the state. These elections, which produced new chairmen and councillors for the 23 local government areas (LGAs), were organised by the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC). The exercise has ushered in a new crop of grassroots leaders whose shoulders now bear the responsibility of steering the affairs of their respective councils. With the polls concluded and winners duly announced, the time has come for the newly elected officials to roll up their sleeves and begin the hard work of governance.

According to the results declared by RSIEC, the All Progressives Congress (APC) secured a dominant lead, winning chairmanship seats in 20 of the 23 local government councils, while the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) clinched the remaining three. This outcome not only reflects the current political dynamics in the state but also places a significant weight of expectation on the shoulders of the APC-led councils to justify the confidence reposed in them by the electorate. It is imperative that political rhetoric now gives way to tangible development, especially at the grassroots level where government is felt most directly.

Following the elections, the successful chairmen were officially sworn into office by the former Sole Administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral (rtd) Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas. The solemn ceremony marked a transition from campaign promises to the reality of public service. With their inauguration complete, the time for celebration has ended; the time for delivery has commenced. The electorate now awaits meaningful action that reflects the hopes and aspirations of the voting public.

As helmsmen of their various LGAs, these leaders must quickly settle down to work. Their constituents expect them to provide direction, formulate policies, and execute programmes that will uplift communities long neglected. The local government tier is closest to the people and, as such, must rise above politicking to meet the everyday needs of the citizenry. It is not enough to occupy office; they must make their impact visibly and positively felt across their domains.

The Supreme Court ruling mandating direct allocation of funds to local governments—although not yet fully implemented—is a welcome development that underscores the autonomy of the third tier of government. Once this is operationalised, the excuses often cited for underperformance will no longer hold water. With funds directly accessed from the Federation Account, council administrations will be better empowered to meet the developmental needs of their localities, if only they manage resources judiciously and prioritise the right projects.

The onus is now on the chairmen to contribute meaningfully to the broader development of Rivers State. The state government cannot and should not be expected to do everything. Local government councils have defined responsibilities—ranging from rural infrastructure, primary healthcare, and basic education to waste management and local security—that must be adequately addressed. It is high time they stopped passing the buck and started acting as the elected leaders they are.

We extend our congratulations to all who emerged victorious in the elections. However, with this victory comes great responsibility. It is no longer about party affiliations or electoral campaigns; it is about governance. The chairmen must launch people-centred projects that will genuinely improve the lives of the rural populace—projects in water supply, road maintenance, school renovation, and youth empowerment, among others. Let their tenure be remembered for its impact, not its slogans.

Central to their mandate should be the welfare of workers. Council employees form the engine room of local governance, and their morale significantly affects service delivery. The new chairmen must ensure regular payment of salaries, staff training, and a conducive working environment. Neglecting this vital aspect will only hinder whatever grand plans they may have for their LGAs.

It is also essential to institute a robust peer review mechanism. The new LG officials should not operate in isolation; rather, they should learn from one another, share ideas, and compete constructively in a bid to outperform each other in service delivery. Healthy competition among council areas will drive innovation and foster accelerated development. Such a system will also help the public identify high-performing councils for emulation.

Given the typically short tenure of council administrations, it is crucial that they focus on projects that are realistic and impactful. Time and resources should not be wasted on white elephant ventures that are neither sustainable nor beneficial to the people. Instead, chairmen should pursue programmes that match their timelines and address immediate community needs.

Peace and security must remain a cardinal objective for all council steersmen. Regardless of who facilitated their election or what political loyalties they hold, they must ensure peace reigns in their areas. Development cannot thrive in an atmosphere of tension and distrust. These leaders must work closely with traditional rulers, youth groups, and civil society organisations to maintain law and order.

A critical understanding must also prevail—that chairmen are leaders of the people, not just leaders of political parties. They must conduct themselves as impartial administrators serving all constituents, irrespective of political affiliations. Additionally, they must work harmoniously with the state governor, who remains the leader of the state. Petty rivalries and political infighting serve no purpose in the development agenda.

Now that the elections are over and governance has begun, it is essential for these chairmen and councillors to adopt an inclusive approach. They must carry everyone along—party members and opposition alike—in their development plans. Creating division or playing favourites will only fracture communities and stall progress. Leadership at the grassroots demands fairness, equity, and a listening ear.

Rivers people have played their part by coming out to vote. The baton has now been passed to the new council helmsmen. They must seize the opportunity to leave lasting legacies in their communities. History will not judge them by the number of rallies they held or the speeches they gave, but by the quality of life they brought to their people. Let them not squander this moment.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

2 weeks ago

September 22, 2025

The Tide

Nigeria’s Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) has unveiled a gratuitous proposal to increase the salaries of political and public office holders in the country. This plan seeks to fatten the pay packets of the president, vice-president, governors, deputy governors, and members of the National and State Assemblies. At a time when the nation is struggling to steady its economy, the suggestion that political leaders should be rewarded with more money is not only misplaced but insulting to the sensibilities of the ordinary Nigerian.

What makes the proposal even more opprobrious is the dire economic condition under which citizens currently live. The cost of living crisis has worsened, inflation has eroded the purchasing power of workers, and the naira continues to tumble against foreign currencies. The majority of Nigerians are living hand to mouth, with many unable to afford basic foodstuffs, medical care, and education. Against this backdrop, political office holders, who already enjoy obscene allowances, perks, and privileges, should not even contemplate a salary increase.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has stepped in to challenge this development. SERAP has filed a lawsuit against the RMAFC to halt the implementation of this salary increment. This resolute move represents a voice of reason and accountability at a time when public anger against political insensitivity is palpable. The group is rightly insisting that the law must serve as a bulwark against impunity.

According to a statement issued by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the commission has been dragged before the Federal High Court in Abuja. Although a hearing date remains unconfirmed, the momentous step of seeking judicial redress reflects a determination to hold those in power accountable. SERAP has once again positioned itself as a guardian of public interest by challenging an elite-centric policy.

The case, registered as suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1834/2025, specifically asks the court to determine “whether RMAFC’s proposed salary hike for the president, vice-president, governors and their deputies, and lawmakers in Nigeria is not unlawful, unconstitutional and inconsistent with the rule of law.” This formidable question goes to the very heart of democratic governance: can those entrusted with public resources decide their own pay rises without violating the constitution and moral order?

In its pleadings, SERAP argues that the proposed hike runs foul of both the 1999 Nigerian Constitution and the RMAFC Act. By seeking a judicial declaration that such a move is unlawful, unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the rule of law, the group has placed a spotlight on the tension between self-serving leadership and constitutionalism. To trivialise such an issue would be harum-scarum, for the constitution remains the supreme authority guiding governance.

We wholeheartedly commend SERAP for standing firm, while we roundly condemn RMAFC’s selfish proposal. Political office should never be an avenue for financial aggrandisement. Since our leaders often pontificate sacrifice to citizens, urging them to tighten their belts in the face of economic turbulence, the same leaders must embody sacrifice themselves. Anything short of this amounts to double standards and betrayal of trust.

The Nigerian economy is not buoyant enough to shoulder the additional cost of a salary increase for political leaders. Already, lawmakers and executives enjoy allowances that are grossly disproportionate to the national average income. These earnings are sufficient not only for their needs but also their unchecked greed. To even consider further increments under present circumstances is egregious, a slap in the face of ordinary workers whose minimum wage remains grossly insufficient.

Resources earmarked for such frivolities should instead be channelled towards alleviating the suffering of citizens and improving the nation’s productive capacity. According to United Nations statistics, about 62.9 per cent of Nigerians were living in multidimensional poverty in 2021, compared to 53.7 per cent in 2017. Similarly, nearly 30.9 per cent of the population lives below the international poverty line of US$2.15 per day. These figures paint a stark picture: Nigeria is a poor country by all measurable standards, and any extra naira diverted to elite pockets deepens this misery.

Besides, the timing of this proposal could not be more inappropriate. At a period when unemployment is soaring, inflation is crippling households, and insecurity continues to devastate communities, the RMAFC has chosen to pursue elite enrichment. It is widely known that Nigeria’s economy is in a parlous state, and public resources should be conserved and wisely invested. Political leaders must show prudence, not profligacy.

Another critical dimension is the national debt profile. According to the Debt Management Office, Nigeria’s total public debt as of March 2025 stood at a staggering N149.39 trillion. External debt obligations also remain heavy, with about US$43 billion outstanding by September 2024. In such a climate of debt-servicing and borrowing to fund budgets, it is irresponsible for political leaders to even table the idea of inflating their salaries further. Debt repayment, not self-reward, should occupy their minds.

This ignoble proposal is insensitive, unnecessary, and profoundly reckless. It should be discarded without further delay. Public office is a trust, not an entitlement to wealth accumulation. Nigerians deserve leaders who will share in their suffering, lead by example, and prioritise the common good over self-indulgence. Anything less represents betrayal of the social contract and undermines the fragile democracy we are striving to build.