Editorial
New Electoral Act: Time To Act
Within days of the passage of the 2021 Electoral (amendment) Bill by the National Assembly, it became immediately discernible that the Presidency was not predisposed to the provision making it obligatory for political parties to determine their candidates only through direct primaries. What followed, however, was the outsourcing of responsibility rather than an endeavour to find a remedy.
It was at first recounted that the President had written to the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Mahmood Yakubu, for his counsel. And then the Attorney General of the Federation and Justice Minister, Abubakar Malami, SAN, or his agents revealed a memo he transmitted to the President, imploring him to decline assent.
If those actions were made up to sequestrate the President, Muhammadu Buhari, from the decision he conclusively made, they were unsavoury or forlorn. At the very least, they made him look doddering and the decision-making process at the highest level of government in this country somewhat indiscreet.
By withholding assent to the Electoral Act (amendment) Bill, Buhari had brandished his veto power, an effective apparatus that usually blocks innovation in Nigeria rather than offer practical leadership on very significant matters. Sadly, this is the fifth time Buhari has frustrated the move to amend the Electoral Act, notwithstanding the platitudes about election candour.
If Buhari were better served, the dummy amendment would not have been introduced in the first place. Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) already contains both direct and indirect primaries, leaving the option for the parties. What the House of Representatives merely did was eliminate the term “indirect”, making it mandatory that party candidates be designated by direct primaries.
However, the Senate never considered it needful to amend the provision in its version and did not concur to it until after the harmonisation conference between both legislative chambers. So, all the dissension being crusaded by the Presidency could painlessly have been conciliated at the point when the joint committee of the two legislative houses was rounding off on the bill.
Given that the current leadership of the National Assembly works closely with the Presidency, it was thought that a consensus could have been reached before the bill was passed. And the veto that dangerously threatens other provisions critical to the translucency of elections in the country would not have been required.
For a man who assumed office on the robust emplacement of technology in the electoral process, it is tough to stick up for President Buhari and the cold-hearted manner he has dealt with the Electoral Act. On four occasions in 2018, the President scandalously denied assent to new alterations.
At that time, the insinuation was that he and his party felt ill at ease with certain provisions, such as the instantaneous conveyance of voting results from polling units to collation centres and authorisation for INEC to utilise full biometric accreditation of voters with smart card readers and other technological devices.
Now, again, Buhari has embargoed the amendment bill as submitted by the National Assembly on November 19, 2021, taking us back, all of a sudden, to 2018 when he held back assent to the Electoral Act (amendment) Bill because the nation lacked the luxury of time to enable relevant institutions to implement the reforms.
Thankfully, the federal legislature has re-worked, for a second time, the bill to include provisions, which expressly mark out the manner of primaries for political parties. While the Senate re-amended the Act, approving direct, indirect primaries or consensus for political parties in selecting their candidates, the House adopted only the direct or indirect and left out the consensus method. The lower house eventually bowed to the Senate in favour of a consensus model.
Having harmonised and passed both versions of the bill into law, we impel the National Assembly to forward the amended legislation to the President for assent without further delay to enable INEC to quickly publish the timetable and itinerary of activities for the 2023 general elections based on the amended law. Since Buhari has evidenced keenness to assent to the bill if the belligerent direct primary clause was withdrawn, he should deliver on his promise.
In January 2019, at the embarkation of the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential campaign council in Abuja, Buhari had guaranteed to leave a patrimony of credible elections, describing the same as the cornerstone of political stability and peace in any nation. Indeed, the President’s search for an enduring legacy promptly finds one in the Electoral Act (amendment) Bill.
No well-intentioned politician should be apprehensive of electronic transmission of results or people’s involvement in a democracy that is all about openness and a verisimilar process. The last American presidential election was an excellent illustration of electronic transmission of results that gave real-time instant results and to the knowledge of all, without occasion for behind-the-scenes manipulation of result sheets or its hijack on the road.
The burden is, therefore, on Mr President to turn down the self-serving arguments of scoundrels in his party and elsewhere against the Electoral Act (amendment) Bill, sign it into law and write his name in gold. That way, he would have instituted one of his endowments and effected his commitment to free, fair and credible elections in 2023.
The recent massacre in Yelewata, Benue State, ranks among Nigeria’s deadliest attacks of
2025. While official figures put the death toll at 59, media reports and Amnesty International estimate between 100 and 200 fatalities. This atrocity extends a decade-long pattern of violence in Nigeria’s Middle Belt, where Beacon Security data records 1,043 deaths in Benue alone between May 2023 and May 2025.
President Tinubu’s visit on 18 June—four days after the 14 June attack—has drawn sharp criticism for its lateness. This delay echoes a history of inadequate responses, with Human Rights Watch documenting similar inaction in Plateau and Kaduna states since 2013, fuelling a culture of impunity. The attack lasted over two hours without meaningful security intervention, despite claims of swift action.
The violence bore hallmarks of genocide, with survivors recounting systematic house burnings and executions. More than 2.2 million people have been displaced in the region since 2019 due to comparable attacks. Data show Benue’s agricultural output falls by 0.21 per cent in crops and 0.31 per cent in livestock for every 1 per cent rise in violence.
Security forces continue to underperform. No arrests were made following the Easter attacks in April (56 killed) or May’s Gwer West massacre (42 killed). During his visit, Tinubu questioned publicly why no suspects had been detained four days after Yelewata, highlighting entrenched accountability failures.
The roots of the conflict are complex, with climate change pushing northern herders south and 77 per cent of Benue’s population reliant on agriculture. A Tiv community leader described the violence as “calculated land-grabbing” rather than mere clashes, with over 500 deaths recorded since 2019.
Government interventions have largely fallen short. The 2018 federal task force and 2025 Forest Guards initiative failed to curb violence. Tinubu’s newly announced committee of ex-governors and traditional rulers has been met with scepticism given the litany of past unkept promises.
The economic fallout is severe. Benue’s status as Nigeria’s “food basket” is crumbling as farms are destroyed and farmers displaced. This worsens the nation’s food crisis, with hunger surges in 2023-2024 directly linked to farming disruptions caused by insecurity.
Citizens demanding justice have been met with force; protesters faced police tear gas, and the State Assembly conceded total failure in safeguarding lives, admitting that the governor, deputy, and 32 lawmakers had all neglected their constitutional responsibilities.
The massacre has drawn international condemnation. Pope Leo XIV decried the “terrible massacre,” while the UN called for an investigation. The hashtag “200 Nigerians” trended worldwide on X, with many contrasting Nigeria’s slow response to India’s swift action following a plane crash with similar fatalities.
Nigeria’s centralised security system is clearly overwhelmed. A single police force is tasked with covering 36 states and 774 local government areas for a population exceeding 200 million. Between 2021 and 2023 alone, 29,828 killings and 15,404 kidnappings were recorded nationally. Proposals for state police, floated since January 2025, remain stalled.
Other populous nations offer alternative models. Canada’s provincial police, India’s state forces, and Indonesia’s municipal units demonstrate the effectiveness of decentralised policing. Nigeria’s centralised structure creates intelligence and response gaps, worsened by the distance—both physical and bureaucratic—from Abuja to affected communities.
The immediate aftermath is dire: 21 IDP camps in Benue are overwhelmed, and a humanitarian crisis is deepening. The State Assembly declared three days of mourning (18-20 June), but survivors lack sufficient medical aid. Tragically, many of those killed were already displaced by earlier violence.
A lasting solution requires a multi-pronged approach, including targeted security deployment, regulated grazing land, and full enforcement of Benue’s 2017 Anti-Open Grazing Law. The National Economic Council’s failure to prioritise state police in May 2025 represents a missed chance for reform.
Without decisive intervention, trends suggest conditions will worsen. More than 20,000 Nigerians have been killed and 13,000 kidnapped nationwide in 2025 alone. As Governor Hyacinth Alia stressed during Tinubu’s visit, state police may be the only viable path forward. All 36 states have submitted proposals supporting decentralisation—a crucial step towards breaking Nigeria’s vicious cycle of violence.
Nigeria’s return to democratic rule in 1999 marked a watershed moment in the nation’s political history. After enduring nearly 16 years of successive military dictatorships, Nigerians embraced a new era of civil governance with the inauguration of President Olusegun Obasanjo on May 29, 1999. Since then, the country has sustained a democratic system for 26 years. But, this democratic journey has been a complex mix of progress and persistent challenges.
The formal recognition of June 12 as Democracy Day in 2018 by former President Muhammadu Buhari acknowledged a long-standing injustice. The annulment of the 1993 presidential election, Nigeria’s freest, betrayed the democratic aspirations of millions. That it took decades to honour this date reflects the nation’s complex relationship with its democratic memory.
One of the most momentous successes of Nigeria’s democracy has been the uninterrupted civilian rule over the last two and a half decades. The country has witnessed seven general elections, with power transferring peacefully among different political parties. This is particularly notable considering that prior to 1999, no civilian government had completed a full term without military intervention. The peaceful transitions in 2007, 2015, and 2023 are testaments to Nigeria’s evolving democratic maturity.
Electoral participation, while uneven, has also reflected a level of democratic engagement. In 2003, voter turnout stood at about 69 per cent, but this figure dropped to approximately 34.75 per cent in 2023, according to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Although the declining turnout raises concerns, it also highlights the increasing expectations of the electorate, who demand credible and transparent elections.
Another area of progress is the growth of a vibrant and free press. Nigerian media has played a crucial role in holding governments accountable and fostering public discourse. Investigative journalism and civil society activism have exposed corruption and human rights abuses. The rise of social media has further expanded the democratic space, enabling young Nigerians to mobilise and advocate for change, as evidenced by the 2020 #EndSARS protests.
Judicial independence has seen mixed results. On one hand, the judiciary has occasionally demonstrated resilience, such as in landmark rulings that overturned fraudulent elections or curtailed executive excesses. On the other hand, allegations of political interference and corruption within the judiciary persist, undermining public confidence in the legal system’s impartiality.
Nigeria’s democracy has also facilitated the decentralisation of power through the federal system. State governments now wield some autonomy, allowing for experimentation in governance and service delivery. While this has led to innovative policies in some states, it has also entrenched patronage networks and uneven development across the federation.
Despite these successes, Nigeria’s democratic journey faces formidable problems. Electoral integrity remains a critical concern. Reports from election observers, including those from the European Union and ECOWAS, frequently highlight issues such as vote-buying, ballot box snatching, and violence. The introduction of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and electronic transmission of results in 2023 elections showed promise, but technical glitches and alleged manipulations dampened public trust.
Corruption continues to be a pervasive issue. Nigeria ranks 145th out of 180 countries on Transparency International’s 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index, with a score of 25/100. Democratic institutions meant to check graft—such as anti-corruption agencies and the legislature—often struggle due to political interference and weak enforcement mechanisms.
Security challenges have also strained Nigeria’s democracy. Insurgency in the North East, banditry in the North West, separatist agitations in the South East, and herder-farmer conflicts across the Middle Belt have collectively resulted in thousands of deaths and displacements. According to the Global Terrorism Index 2024, Nigeria ranks as the eighth most impacted country by terrorism. The government’s difficulty in ensuring safety erodes public confidence in the state’s capacity and legitimacy.
The economy poses another critical remonstrance. Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita stands at approximately $2,400 as of 2024, with over 40 per cent of the population living below the national poverty line. High unemployment and inflation have fueled discontent and disillusionment with democratic governance, especially among youth. Without addressing economic grievances, the democratic dividend will remain elusive for many Nigerians.
Ethnic and religious divisions further complicate Nigeria’s democratic consolidation. Politicians often exploit identity politics for electoral gains, exacerbating social tensions. Although federal character principles aim to promote inclusiveness, they have also sometimes fostered a quota mentality rather than merit-based appointments.
Gender representation remains inadequate in Nigeria’s democratic institutions. Women occupy less than 10 per cent of seats in the National Assembly, one of the lowest rates globally. Efforts to pass gender parity bills have faced stiff resistance, highlighting deep-seated cultural and institutional barriers to female political participation.
Civil liberties, while constitutionally guaranteed, are under threat. Crackdowns on protesters, restrictions on press freedom, and surveillance of activists reveal an authoritarian streak within the democratic framework. The controversial Twitter ban in 2021 exemplified the country’s willingness to curb digital freedoms, prompting domestic and international criticism.
The political crisis in Rivers State embodies broader democratic struggles. Attempts to control the state through undemocratic means expose weaknesses in federal institutions and the rule of law. Immediate restoration of democratic governance in Rivers State is vital to preserving Nigeria’s democratic integrity and institutional credibility.
Local governments remain under the control of state governors, depriving citizens of grassroots democracy. Last year’s Supreme Court judgment on local government autonomy is promising, but state-level resistance threatens its implementation. Genuine autonomy would bring governance closer to the people and foster democratic innovation.
As we mark Democracy Day, we must honour the sacrifices of Chief M.K.O. Abiola, Kudirat Abiola, Femi Falana, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Pa Alfred Rewane, President Bola Tinubu, and countless others, who fought for Nigeria’s freedom. As democracy in Nigeria continues to evolve after 26 years, this day should inspire action toward its renewal. With despotism and state failure as real threats, both citizens and leaders must take responsibility—citizens by demanding more, and leaders by delivering. Excuses are no longer acceptable.