By Jibrin Ibrahim

As the countdown to the 2027 elections reached 100 days this week Tuesday, Joash Amupitan, chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), called a press conference to brief the Nation on their preparedness for the rapidly approaching polls.

His big story was that the commission will deploy artificial intelligence (AI) tools for result verification and to strengthen cybersecurity ahead of the 2027 elections.

He announced the establishment of a dedicated AI division within its information and communication technology (ICT) department which will enable automated AI auditing tools that are integrated into the commission’s result verification process under a five-pillar AI governance framework.

He added that the use of AI would be subjected to mandatory human oversight and that the commission is working with international technology leaders and partners to integrate AI-driven anomaly detection tools into its systems.

He said the tools would be used to monitor database traffic and protect the commission’s systems against cyber intrusions and unauthorised alterations. Given current universal concerns over AI enabled abuses, I doubt that his words were very reassuring given the trust deficit Nigerians already have about INEC. Everything else he said was about their excellent state of preparedness for the elections.

There have been widespread concerns on Professor Amupitan’s political neutrality and the onus is on him to prove his credibility. As elections in the Fourth Republic roll by, Nigerians have become increasingly concerned about the decline of the electoral system as an institution that could guarantee the rights of citizens to freely choose those who exercise power on their behalf.

Since assuming office, the new Chairman of INEC has expressed commitment and readiness to rewrite Nigeria’s electoral history by ensuring the integrity of the 2027 elections surpasses previous elections. I definitely hope and pray that he is truthful.

The legitimacy of elections is derived from the existence of a level playing ground for competition and contestation. Where competition is eliminated or restricted, elections lose their democratic ingredient. One of the most profound threats to the 2027 elections is the systematic erosion of political competition through induced defections from political parties and the incremental decimation of opposition parties. This distortion of the political landscape could disincentive public participation in the 2027 elections, as voters will have limited political choices.

Constricting the political space and the gradual descent towards a one-party state threaten Nigeria’s democratic trajectory ahead of the 2027 elections. When political pluralism is overtly or covertly removed from electoral politics, authoritarianism creeps in, and it diminishes the legitimacy of electoral outcomes. My greatest fear for the 2027 elections is the growing concern of Nigerians that their votes may not count. The fear is that three major institutions: security agencies, INEC, and the judiciary might compromise the electoral process.

The widespread insecurity and escalating tensions in the country is not new but poses directly the question whether insurgency, banditry, communal conflicts, separatist agitations, and organised criminal violence could continue to overstretch Nigeria’s security architecture and create conditions to explain away State complicity in compromising the elections.

This expanded geography of insecurity undermines the likelihood of a safe and peaceful environment for elections. INEC may be constrained to organise elections in volatile and ungoverned spaces, while voters in conflict zones may be disenfranchised. Where insecurity impedes the deployment of election personnel, materials, and security assets, the credibility and inclusiveness of the electoral process are fundamentally compromised.

The increasingly prominent role of the judiciary in determining electoral outcomes is another facet of the problem. If INEC decides to go rogue, it could do a lot of damage. It would be recalled that in 2023 Justice Inyang Okoro led Supreme Court Presidential Petition Panel said that INEC is at liberty to prescribe the mode of collating results during an election and that IReV is not a collation centre and shouldn’t be a reason to invalidate the results of an election.

More recently, the Supreme Court has also affirmed the right of INEC to prescribe guidelines that affect political party primaries and membership. We recall that in June 2002, INEC rejected the registration applications of over 24 political associations.

It was the Supreme Court that declared its action void and ordered the registration of the associations. That judgment became a precedent that once an association had met the constitutional requirements, INEC was bound to comply with its registration in line with the decision of INEC v. Balarabe Musa (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 806). In 2007, INEC arbitrarily disqualified Atiku Abubakar from contesting the 2007 election because he had been indicted by a tribunal, even without conviction. It was still the same Supreme Court that restricted their powers and held that INEC had no power to disqualify a candidate from contesting the election.

Since then, almost all judgments seem to favour the administrative actions of INEC, even when they are a clog in the wheels of democracy. The fear now is that on-going attempts to block major opposition candidates.

In his address at the press conference on Tuesday, the INEC Chairman confirmed receipt of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court judgment on the validity of key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 following a legal challenge by the Zenith Labour Party (ZLP) affirming the constitutionality of some sections of the Electoral Act 2026.

The Supreme Court judgment concerns Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, which regulate political parties’ membership registers and the nomination of candidates for elective positions.

The court, in a unanimous judgment delivered on 24 September 2026, restored the four provisions after the Court of Appeal had earlier voided them. The court ruled that section 77(5) provides that only members whose names appear on a political party’s membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary, congress or convention can participate in the exercise. Section 77(6) requires political parties to use the membership register submitted to INEC for their primaries, congresses and conventions, while Section 77(7) provides that a party that fails to submit its register within the stipulated period cannot field a candidate in an election.

Section 84(2) provides that political parties shall nominate candidates for elective positions through direct primaries or consensus. The Supreme Court held that the provisions were consistent with the Nigerian Constitution and consequently restored the judgment of the Federal High Court, which had earlier dismissed the legal challenge to the provisions. INEC now has the tools to mess up opposition candidates if it decides to do so.

A professor of Political Science and development consultant/expert, Jibrin Ibrahim is a Senior Fellow of the Centre for Democracy and Development, and Chair of the Editorial Board of PREMIUM TIMES.

By Hajia Hadiza Mohammed

For some time now the hottest issue of debate in the Nigeria media space has been the proposed release of the American FBI files on Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, with Tinubu fighting and lobbying intensely against the release of the said files that allegedly had criminal contents.

While the debate on the issue rages, Tinubu jetted out of the country on three-week vacation in France, refusing to attend the 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) event in New-York, something his critics attributed to fear of arrest by the American authorities over his involvement in narcotics trafficking in the past.

Then came the news shortly after that a person close to Tinubu offered a bribe of $3 million to Dr. Karl Von Batten, the founder of Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C., a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm working for the release of the Tinubu FBI files.

Then suddenly a few days ago the news came that the government of Nigeria and the United States has signed have signed an agreement to attract American investment into Nigeria’s solid minerals sector and unlock an estimated $700 billion in mineral resources; strategic framework agreement to boost American investment in Nigeria’s solid minerals sector, raising suspicions about the purpose of the said deal and the intention of Tinubu to accent to the deal. Yes the timing, the circumstances are fueling speculations that Tinubu is trading off Nigerians common wealth for his personal protection and inordinate ambition.

The framework, signed in New York on Wednesday September 24, 2026 at Nigeria’s Mission House in New York by Nigeria’s Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Dele Alake, and US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, is said to target cooperation in mineral exploration, development, processing, infrastructure and technical capacity.

Speaking at the occasion Alake said among other things that: “Our goal is to turn potential into lasting value at home through stronger local processing, new skills, quality jobs, and new opportunities for Nigerian businesses”.

If the agreement was borne out of genuine desire by the Federal Government to attract investment into Nigeria’s mining industry, diversify government revenue and reduce dependence on oil through the development of the country’s solid mineral resources I have no problem with it in any way, but the timing and the manner of execution of the pact without due process leaves much to be desired.

First, we need to understand that this is not a $700 billion investment by the US in Nigeria. The $700 billion figure is the estimated value of Nigeria’s mineral resources. The agreement is expected to provide a framework for US-backed investment and partnership across Nigeria’s mining value chain. Alake’s words that the two countries would identify viable projects, mobilize investments and develop commercial partnerships capable of delivering measurable benefits indicates that the said deal was hurriedly packaged without the necessary technical details. How then did they come about the $700 billion value of the deal?

Many critics and concerned Nigerians have raised questions about the relevance of the deal, the purpose and detail taking into consideration Tinubu’s penchant for taking arbitrary decisions on things that are of general concern.

The cases of Tinubu’s unilateral decision and use of our common resources is endless: from the off-budget expenditure, to awarding contract without due process, using our public funds to lobby for image laundry, bribery, diverting public funds from source without passing through the federation account, arbitrary siting of government projects in a particular, lopsided appointments and uncontrolled borrowing and wasteful spending.

One of the major problems of Nigeria is the attitude of those in power over the use of public wealth. Some have wrong notions about governance and representation. Some think that they own the people and that the people should serve them instead of serving the people. Some people in power erroneously think that they are the state.

All the resources of the state are for them to use as it pleases them; to deploy at will. They forgot that they are only a temporary caretaker. They are wielding power in trust for the people. It is absolutely wrong to deploy resources for personal reasons. It is an abuse of office.

Our natural resources are public assets and our collective wealth and not the private property of the president or government officials and so any deal involving our common wealth must be properly handled transparently for the general good. The issues are that Nigerians need to know what we are committed to in this mineral resources deal with America.

What minerals are covered by the agreement? How is our national interest protected under the agreement? What binding provisions guarantee Nigerian jobs, local content, technology transfer and value addition? How will disputes be settled? Has the NASS that has the regulatory approval for such international pact been formally informed?

The truth is that the Nigerian public is skeptical about this deal. The suspicion is that Tinubu has mortgaged our common wealth for his freedom and his personal ambition. Yes Nigeria wants the exploration and utilization of our abundant mineral resources to reduce dependence on oil. But the exploitation should be for the benefit of Nigerians.

It should not be mortgaged to pursue personal ambition. I recommend total investigation and review of the deal. Let due process be observed. If there is any breach anywhere, the deal should be terminated.

Hajia Hadiza Mohammed, Hajiahadizamohammed@gmail.com An actress, a social activist, politician, London, UK

By Dakuku Peterside

Think of a Nigerian born in 1999, the year civilian rule came back. That person is twenty-seven now. They have never lived under a military government. But they may have finished school and not found a job.

They have probably learnt to plan trips around insecurity, and they almost certainly run a generator at home. Democracy has been part of their whole lives. Whether it has given them any real say over that life is another matter.

That is the strange thing about Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. Civilian government has lasted, but citizens’ power over it remains uncertain.

We count elections, administrations and anniversaries. We should also count how often institutions protect ordinary people, public money becomes public benefit, and those who abuse power face consequences.

Continuity matters. Our earlier republics were cut short by soldiers. The system established in 1999 has survived successive handovers, including 2015, when President Goodluck Jonathan lost and conceded. That achievement deserves protecting. But survival is the beginning of democratic development, not proof of its completion.

Democratic continuity means civilian rule keeps going. Democratic consolidation means its limits can be relied upon. Presidents accept restraint. Opposition parties can compete. Judges can rule without political intimidation. Citizens can obtain justice without a godfather. Democracy matures when those protections hold precisely when powerful people would prefer to ignore them.

The test often comes after an election. Can winners tolerate scrutiny? Can supporters acknowledge their leaders’ wrongdoing? Can losers accept a credible result without feeling excluded from the country? Consolidation requires rules that prevent loyalty from becoming immunity.

Time alone cannot deliver that. Institutions can grow older without growing stronger. Repeated elections may teach politicians to respect competition, or simply to manipulate it more effectively. What matters is what the system learns, and who benefits.

That is the continuity trap. A system that keeps rewarding its insiders gives them little reason to change it. Politicians who benefit from expensive nomination forms, opaque campaign funding and weak oversight have scant incentive to widen access. Each election that returns them to influence confirms that the arrangement works. What citizens experience as dysfunction, insiders may regard as a successful bargain.

The trap survives because its costs are scattered while its rewards are concentrated. One community loses a clinic, another loses a road, and a third loses confidence in voting. Those benefiting from the arrangement know exactly what they stand to lose if reform happens. Citizens need to connect these separate disappointments into a sustained demand for better government.

This explains how we can have so much politics and so little service. Parties organise lavish conventions, while hospitals lack medicines. Legislatures approve budgets, while communities cannot identify the contractor behind an abandoned project. The machinery for renewing power receives more attention than the machinery for making it answerable.

Institutions should correct that imbalance. Electoral bodies protect voters’ choices; legislatures scrutinise executives; courts defend rights; anti-corruption agencies investigate misconduct. Their independence has a practical test: Can they act when doing so inconveniences those who appoint or fund them?

The 2023 presidential election exposed the stakes. Results did not appear on INEC’s Results Viewing Portal as promptly as expected. European Union observers reported that upload failures and poor communication weakened trust. The failure did not, by itself, establish that every disputed result was fraudulent. It did leave citizens struggling to verify the connection between their ballots and the announced outcome. Technology creates confidence only when institutions explain failures and make verification possible.

Courts have a legitimate role in resolving disputes. But litigation cannot replace an electoral process that voters can understand and check. Nor can anti-corruption agencies retain credibility if party affiliation appears to determine who faces investigation. Institutions must explain their decisions and apply consistent standards.

Low participation should concern us. Insecurity, logistical failures and distrust can all discourage voting. Yet staying at home carries a cost: organised political machines do not withdraw alongside disappointed citizens. Disengagement can strengthen the networks that people distrust. Rebuilding confidence and sustaining participation therefore go hand-in-hand.

Nigerians can remain committed to democracy while losing faith in those governing in its name. That distinction leaves room for reform. Public frustration is not necessarily a demand to abandon democracy; often, it is a demand that democracy finally delivers.

Economic hardship makes that demand urgent. A parent choosing between food and school fees, a farmer afraid to reach his land, or a graduate trapped in insecure work needs citizenship to mean something in daily life. Security and functioning services give democratic promises substance.

Still, prosperity cannot excuse repression, and hardship alone does not invalidate an elected government. Difficult reforms may be necessary. Their legitimacy depends on honest explanation, fair burdens, protection for vulnerable households, and a willingness to correct mistakes.

The 2023 naira redesign offers a concrete lesson. In his February broadcast, President Muhammadu Buhari acknowledged the difficulties citizens faced during implementation. Whatever the policy’s stated aims, the shortage of usable cash exposed the distance between an official timetable and people’s capacity to cope. Reform must be tested against everyday transactions: buying food, paying transport fares, keeping a small business open. Announcing a policy is easier than making it workable.

Trust also depends on visible restraint. Leaders asking citizens to sacrifice should curb their own excesses. Criticism should prompt answers, not accusations of disloyalty. Admitting that a policy needs adjustment is part of governing responsibly.

The “japa” debate reflects this wider crisis of confidence. Migration has many causes. But when young people see their best prospects elsewhere, patriotic appeals are insufficient. Staying must become a sensible choice, supported by safety, opportunity and institutions that reward effort fairly.

Elite capture makes that harder. Defection can be legitimate, but parties that revolve around proximity to power offer voters little dependable policy choice. Open finances, credible internal contests and clear programmes would help turn parties into vehicles for representation rather than bargaining platforms.

Women, young people and candidates without wealthy sponsors must have a realistic route into office. Excluding them narrows the experience informing public decisions. Inclusion improves government and makes it fairer.

Our diversity also requires secure citizenship. Representation matters, but ethnic and religious loyalties should not shield poor performance. People must be able to criticise leaders from their own communities without being treated as traitors.

Federalism remains unfinished business. Bringing authority closer to citizens can improve responsiveness, but proximity does not guarantee accountability. Governors can abuse power too. Any transfer of money or security responsibilities needs enforceable safeguards and remedies ordinary people can use.

Public spending offers both a warning and a possibility. The Second Niger Bridge, commissioned in May 2023 after years of planning and development, shows that civilian government can deliver substantial infrastructure. The democratic lesson is to make completion routine and maintenance dependable. Citizens should not have to wait for a departing administration’s legacy ceremony to see their needs addressed.

Two specific reform demands follow. First, amend electoral law to require publication of polling-unit result images and corresponding collation records within defined deadlines, with a documented procedure for technical failures. INEC should publish an independent technical audit after every general election. Breaches should trigger enforceable sanctions, subject to due process. Voters deserve a verifiable chain from ballot to declaration.

Second, require every federally funded capital project to carry a public identifier linking its appropriation, contractor, contract value, payments and independently verified completion status. Publish the records on a searchable portal, updated quarterly, with penalties for withholding or falsifying information. Citizens should be able to follow a project from budget approval to a working service.

These demands make accountability practical. They also give journalists, professional bodies and communities evidence with which to challenge official claims between elections. Public service must become the measure of political success.

Accountability should also be something people can practise close to home. A residents’ association asking why a funded borehole remains dry is doing democratic work. So is a professional body examining a ministry’s spending. These ordinary acts matter because they turn frustration into questions officials must answer and make public pressure harder to dismiss as partisan noise.

Authoritarian rule offers no dependable shortcut. Removing scrutiny also removes the tools for correcting failure. Nigeria must repair democratic government while protecting the freedoms that make that repair possible.

Reform must outlast a government’s honeymoon. Leaders need to accept safeguards that may constrain them later. Citizens need to defend those safeguards when their preferred party holds office. Otherwise, accountability remains something we demand only of opponents.

Twenty-seven years have given Nigeria experience, institutional memory and repeated opportunities to improve. They have also exhausted the excuse that our democracy is too young to face serious standards.

The generation born in 1999 deserves more than a life without soldiers in power. It deserves a government it can influence, institutions it can trust, and a country where hard work leads to a real future. We should judge the next Democracy Day by how far we have moved towards that. Nigeria has kept the clock running. Now it must make the years count.

Dakuku Peterside, a leadership and management expert, wrote Leading in a Storm.