Blog

The president of Nigeria wields an immense amount of power, even more so than the US president. While the American president is often referred to as “the most powerful man on earth” in relation to foreign affairs, their domestic power is significantly constrained due to the nature of America’s federalism, separation of powers, and robust system of checks and balances. In contrast, Nigeria’s president enjoys unrestricted executive powers. The National Assembly typically acts as a rubber stamp and is subservient to the executive, the judiciary is susceptible to executive intimidation and lacks teeth, and federal agencies are entirely dependent on the presidency without any independence. The states themselves are subordinate to the Federal Government, which can make life difficult for any state not in its favor. It is no wonder that some people describe Nigeria’s president as being “next to God.”

Given these circumstances, and considering Nigeria’s fragile and deeply polarized nature along regional, ethnic, and religious lines, it is crucial that the president, who wields such extensive and unrestrained powers, emerges from an election that undeniably reflects the free expression of the voters’ will across the country. If, under these circumstances, a “president” were to emerge through a tainted and discredited election, it would have far-reaching consequences, further deepening Nigeria’s disunity, instability, and fragility.

Unfortunately, the recently published final report of the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) on Nigeria’s 2023 general elections reveals that Bola Tinubu, Nigeria’s current president, assumed office through a deeply flawed and discredited election that lacked basic transparency and credibility. As expected, Tinubu’s government rejected the report and even sponsored protesters to storm the European Union Head Office in Abuja. However, the report’s meticulous analysis is difficult to refute and stands as an irrefutable account.

Critics of Tinubu may resort to abusing, insulting, threatening, and name-calling on social media, but this column serves to speak truth to power. I live in a country, the United Kingdom, where a prime minister was forced out of power and parliament for lying, and I admire a country, the United States, where a former president faced felony charges and was fined for a sexual offense committed over 30 years ago. However, in Nigeria, political leaders operate above the law and beyond institutional scrutiny. This is unacceptable, especially when their actions jeopardize Nigeria’s long-term unity, stability, progress, and democratic development.

Readers of this column know that I vehemently opposed Tinubu becoming president due to his acute lack of integrity and character, and my strong belief that he is morally and ethically unfit to govern Nigeria. Nevertheless, I would have accepted his leadership if he had won in a free, fair, transparent, and credible election. However, the truth is that he did not, and the EU EOM report confirms what other genuinely independent observers, not compromised ones, have stated.

Of course, I will accept the verdict of the Supreme Court on the presidential election petitions. However, I hope that their decision is not based on perverse public policy rationale or technicalities, but rather on a reasoned and reasonable interpretation of substantive and procedural law. For the integrity and legitimacy of the decision, technicalities should not override substantive justice and due process values. If the Supreme Court must declare a rerun of the presidential election, so be it.

Bizarrely, some argue that it doesn’t matter how someone becomes president, even if they take a crooked route, as long as they perform. Those making this argument might as well say that it doesn’t matter if a military regime takes power, as long as it is benevolent, competent, and performs. After all, what is the difference between gaining power through a rigged election that undermines the will of the people and gaining power through the barrel of a gun?

The truth is that the “end-justifies-the-means” argument, which asserts that performance is all that matters, as if performance is a monopoly, will only entrench fraudulent elections in Nigeria. It will impede democratic development and trap the country in deeper disunity and instability.

This brings us back to the EU EOM report. At its core, the report emphasizes that Nigeria’s elections lack a level playing field. This is of utmost importance because any competitive sport or game relies on a level playing field. In any sport, if an athlete wins a medal through cheating, that medal is withdrawn once the cheating is discovered, and any biased or incompetent referee faces public condemnation and may even lose their license.

So why is it that in Nigeria’s presidential election, a supposed electoral competition, someone can “win” through rigging while the electoral body demonstrates clear bias and utter incompetence, and all we hear is the dismissive taunt: “Go to court”? This taunt only adds insult to injury, particularly when the court itself may be compromised.

Let’s start with the EU EOM’s assessment of the independence of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The report states that the process of selecting INEC commissioners and Resident Electoral Commissioners leaves the institution vulnerable to perceptions of partiality. Is this not true? Former President Buhari appointed several loyalists of the All Progressives Congress (APC), his party, as national and resident electoral commissioners.

Recently, Rotimi Amaechi, former governor of Rivers State and Minister of Transportation, publicly stated that he warned Buhari not to reappoint Professor Mahmood Yakubu as INEC chairman because he is a supporter of Tinubu. Would it be acceptable if, for example, in a match between Arsenal and Chelsea, the referee were a strong supporter of one team? The truth is that Nigeria will not have credible elections until INEC is genuinely independent of the government and the ruling party.

Sadly, INEC cannot escape allegations of partiality in this year’s elections. The fact that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Results Viewing Portal (IReV) worked smoothly in other elections but malfunctioned during the presidential election is deeply suspicious, despite the feeble excuse of “technical glitches.” The EU EOM report states that only 31% of the presidential election results uploaded on the IReV system were formally and mathematically correct. How can an election with such significant result discrepancies be considered credible?

The EU EOM’s other findings will resonate with any objective observer. Wasn’t the abuse of incumbency rampant? If Buhari and most of the incumbent governors were subjected to lie detector tests, it would likely reveal their manipulation of INEC officials and the security agencies.

It is a fact that many Resident Electoral Commissioners and Returning Officers were pressured by certain governors and even INEC itself to falsify results in their states. What about the misuse of state resources? The Electoral Act of 2022 prohibits “the use of state apparatus to the advantage or disadvantage of any political party or candidate” (Section 92(2)). Yet, the incumbents blatantly misused state resources to their advantage and distorted the level playing field.

Ultimately, none of this would matter if the judiciary were independent and capable of safeguarding Nigeria’s democracy. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Supreme Court has eroded public trust with questionable decisions. How can anyone have confidence in the judiciary when a senator, Adamu Bulkachuma, confessed to influencing several decisions made by his wife when she served as the President of the Court of Appeal? It is truly shocking!

Therefore, do not shoot the messenger. The EU EOM is right