OPINION
Why the Resistance to Nigeria’s Electoral Reform Raises More Questions than Answers
By Isaac Asabor
There is no denying the fact that transparency is the reason why the latest confrontation inside the House of Representatives of Nigeria over the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2025 is not just another parliamentary disagreement, it is a defining moment that demands scrutiny.
The immediate trigger was straightforward: a motion by Francis Waive to rescind the earlier passage of the amendment bill so lawmakers could revisit provisions in light of emerging electoral reforms.
The Speaker, Abbas Tajudeen, put the matter to a voice vote. The majority rejected it. Protests followed. A proposal to deliberate privately was also rejected before lawmakers eventually moved behind closed doors.On the surface, this may appear procedural. But beneath the parliamentary drama lies a deeper national question: why would lawmakers resist reopening a bill tied to the credibility of elections, particularly at a time when electronic transmission of results remains one of the most contested reforms ahead of 2027?
This is not merely about the legislative process. It is about political incentives, institutional trust, and the future architecture of Nigeria’s elections.
Without any iota of exaggeration in this context, it is very obvious that the central issue to the ongoing electoral imbroglio is control versus transparency.
Without a doubt, electronic transmission of election results represents a structural shift in how political power is verified. This is as it reduces human discretion at collation centres, limits manipulation between polling units and final declaration, and introduces a digital audit trail. In essence, it shrinks the space where electoral outcomes can be negotiated rather than counted.
That reality explains why debates around result transmission are never technical alone, they are fundamentally political.
At this juncture, it is expedient to opine that resistance to revisiting an electoral reform bill in this climate naturally fuels suspicion. If reforms promise greater transparency, opposition to those reforms invites a simple question: who benefits from opacity?
Legislators may argue procedural sufficiency or legislative finality. But the public reads signals differently. When reforms linked to electoral integrity meet institutional resistance, citizens do not interpret caution; they interpret self-preservation.
In fact, Nigeria’s history with electoral reform is marked less by outright rejection than by strategic hesitation. Reform proposals are rarely dismissed in principle; instead, they are slowed, diluted, or procedurally complicated. The effect is the same, transformation is deferred.
Electronic transmission of results has followed this familiar path. It is widely supported by civil society, endorsed by many voters, and repeatedly debated within government. Yet implementation has remained contested, conditional, or inconsistently applied.
This pattern reveals a structural tension: democratic legitimacy requires transparency, but political survival often depends on control over uncertainty. Where election outcomes are predictable through transparent processes, incumbency advantage weakens. Where ambiguity persists, influence remains negotiable. That tension is the real battlefield behind legislative maneuvers.
In fact, the attempt to rescind passage of the amendment bill was framed as an effort to align legislation with evolving reforms. In principle, this is normal legislative housekeeping. Laws must adapt to new realities. So why the resistance?
In fact, since the controversies and agitations surrounding Nigeria Electoral Reform Bill, particularly one of its key elements, which is the adoption of the e-tranmission of results, several possible motivations have emerged.
One is the fear of reopening settled compromises. This is as electoral bills are typically products of delicate bargaining. Therefore, reopening them risks undoing agreements that benefited certain blocs. In fact, lawmakers who secured favorable provisions have little incentive to revisit them.
Two, is the anxiety over technological accountability. This is as electronic transmission limits discretionary authority during collation. It shifts power from political actors to systems. For those accustomed to influence at critical counting stages, reform represents a loss of leverage.
Third, is the strategic timing of the electoral reform before 2027. With another general election approaching, institutional actors are recalculating risk. Any reform that reduces electoral unpredictability may disadvantage those relying on traditional mobilization structures or localized control mechanisms.
Four, is institutional self-protection. However, legislatures often resist changes perceived as externally pressured, whether from public agitation, civil society, or electoral bodies. Opposition may reflect not only political interest but institutional defensiveness. Again, none of these motivations are publicly declared. Yet each aligns with observable political behavior.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the episode was not the rejection of the motion itself, but the resistance to open deliberation followed by eventual retreat into a closed session.
In fact, democracy depends not only on outcomes but on visible process. When debates about election laws move behind closed doors, suspicion multiplies. Citizens are left to interpret silence.
Again, closed-door sessions are not inherently illegitimate. Sensitive negotiations sometimes require privacy. But in matters directly affecting electoral credibility, opacity carries heavy symbolic cost. It suggests that the public is an observer, not a participant, in decisions shaping their political future. That perception damages confidence more than any legislative clause.
In fact, the controversy cannot be reduced to parliamentary procedure because the Electoral Act governs the mechanism through which political authority is renewed. Its design determines whether elections are competitions or contests of influence.
Again, electronic transmission of results is not a technological luxury. It is a trust infrastructure. It addresses long-standing allegations of tampering between polling units and final announcements, the very stage where public confidence has historically eroded.
In a similar vein, Nigeria’s democratic journey has survived transitions, crises, and contested outcomes. But survival alone is no longer sufficient. Citizens increasingly demand credibility, not just periodic elections, but verifiable ones.
Also in a similar vein, electoral legitimacy in the digital age depends on auditability. Voters must not only cast ballots; they must believe results reflect those ballots. Electronic transmission addresses that psychological contract.
Again, when lawmakers appear hesitant to strengthen mechanisms of verification, they unintentionally communicate a troubling message: that uncertainty remains politically useful. This is as trust cannot coexist with perceived reluctance toward transparency.
Against the backdrop of the foregoing view, it is germane to opine that as we look ahead to 2027 that the agitation surrounding electronic transmission is not fading. It is intensifying because the next general election will test whether Nigeria’s democratic institutions have evolved or merely endured.
In fact, if reforms are stalled, diluted, or ambiguously implemented, the 2027 election risks inheriting the same credibility disputes that have shadowed previous cycles.
Conversely, decisive legislative clarity would signal institutional confidence, a declaration that electoral outcomes need no protective ambiguity. In fact, the choice before lawmakers is therefore not technical but historical: whether to reinforce democratic trust or manage democratic skepticism.
At this juncture, permit this writer to note, as a reminder to Nigerian lawmakers that they may offer procedural explanations for their stance. They may cite legislative order, technical caution, or policy sufficiency. But the public’s question is simpler and more persistent: If reforms strengthen transparency, why resist them?
Until that question is answered openly and convincingly, every procedural maneuver will be interpreted through the lens of hidden motive. And in politics, perception often carries more weight than intention.
The confrontation in the legislature is a symptom of a larger democratic tension, the struggle between institutional control and public accountability.
Nigeria stands at a crossroads where electoral legitimacy will increasingly depend on verifiable processes rather than institutional assurances. Electronic transmission of results is not the entirety of reform, but it is a decisive step toward restoring confidence in electoral outcomes.
Given the backdrop of the foregoing view, it is not out of context to opine that lawmakers face a choice that extends beyond legislative procedure. They must decide whether democratic trust is strengthened through openness or managed through control.
If resistance to reform persists without clear justification, suspicion will not only endure, it will deepen. And when citizens begin to doubt the mechanisms of choice,
In fact, the events in the legislature have therefore done more than stall a motion. They have exposed a question that Nigeria can no longer postpone: Is electoral reform being debated in the interest of democracy, or negotiated in the interest of power?
Until that question is answered in the open, the tension witnessed in parliament will remain a mirror of a larger national uncertainty: whether the future of Nigeria’s elections will be counted in daylight or contested in shadow.
By Uji Wilfred
Right from the foundations of the Independence struggle that led to self-rule, political party formations in Nigeria were crafted majorly for the capture of political power through periodic elections.
Political Parties never had ideological foundations that defined the boundaries of political recruitment and participation.
Political parties in their formation, leadership structure and ownership, belonged more to the ruling oligarchs than the people or the masses.In the First Republic, political parties had little ideological bent, framed along regional and ethnic sentiments, but little of rallying the entire nation along in a unified polity.
In the general elections of 1954 – 1956, each of the ruling political party, the Northern People’s Congress, the Action Group and the National Council of Nigerian Citizens emerged as regional parties in terms of the demographic voting pattern as well as the control of political seats.The First Republic suffered from a contradiction of centripetal and centrifugal forces within the framework of the tripartite system which eventually led to the collapse of that republic.
Political parties as well as the leadership recruitment reflected a regional and ethnic bias more than the need for the national integration of Nigeria.
Decamping across political lines, irrespective of ideological leanings, were the basic norms of the First Republic with political parties splitting out from the major political party. Formation of new political parties to fragment the dominant hold of ruling political parties were common political vices of the political class at that time. For example, Chief Akintola, despite the ideological soundness of the Action Group, splitted up the party with the formation of a new political party.
Chief Akintola’s desire was fired more by ambition than the issues of ideology and national interest.
In Northern Nigeria, the ruling Northern People’s Congress waged a war of suppression and dominance against other minority political parties with strong ideological bent that inspired minority ethnic nationalism.
The NPC through its slogan of One North, One Destiny, suppressed minority political parties such as the United Middle Belt Congress led by Joseph Tarkaa.
The point is that Nigeria from her foundations inherited a political culture where political parties have weak ideological roots as well as party and leadership recruitment.
Since 1999, Nigeria has witnessed the recycling of bourgeoisie Political Party Formation and leadership recruitment through a process of metamorphosis that defiles ideological lines and national interest.
Political participation and leadership recruitment has been centered on the urgent need to capture power at the center using political parties owned by a few powerful oligarchs.
The People’s Democratic Party in its formation and foundation was a fraternity of past and serving military generals and their civilian equivalent.
The PDP since its inception has been led by past military officers like David Mark and Atiku Abubakar, the civilian equivalent of the military.
The dream of the PDP led by these retired military generals under the leadership of former President Olusegun Obasanjo was the enthronement of Africa’s biggest political party that was to last for a century.
As good as the dream of the party was, the PDP, like the experience of the First and Second Republics lacked deep ideological roots that defined the boundaries of political recruitment and participation.
The triumph of the People’s Democratic Party forced the rival All People’s Party and the Action Congress of Nigeria into a state of collapse and submission leading up to the bourgeoisie metamorphosis that resulted to the formation of the All Progressive Congress on the eve of 2015 with the sole objective to unseat President Good luck Jonathan.
The APC was a metamorphosis and amalgamation of opposition parties including some dissenting faction of the PDP to reclaim the so called birth right of the far right North in Nigeria to produce the President of Nigeria.
Political recruitment and leadership struggle in Nigeria has never been defined by ideological needs to salvage or emancipate Nigeria as a nation. Political struggle has always been a recycling of that section of the bourgeoisie, through a process of metamorphosis, whose objective is to capture political power at the center.
The present protest and political struggle by the African Democratic Congress, the faction led by David Mark and Atiku Abubakar, is a recycling of bourgeoisie metamorphosis not too different from the experience of 2015.
At best, the David Mark and Atiku Abubakar led protest represents that desperate struggle entrenched in the thinking of the Far Right of Far Northern Nigeria, that political leadership resides in the ancestral birth right of the aristocratic ruling political class of the North.
David Mark and Atiku Abubakar perhaps are suffering from a dementia that has made them forget that they were the agents that destroyed the foundations of democracy in Nigeria through the sacking of former President Good luck Jonathan of the People’s Democratic Party.
These men formed the All Progressive Congress and wrestled power from a democratic government exploiting the dynamics of national security and developmental challenges.
In 2015, Nigerians believed their opinions and through the ballot removed Good luck Jonathan.
However, since then, has Nigeria fared better under the APC that was enthroned by oligarchs leading in the present protest under the auspices of the ADC.
Perhaps, David Mark and Atiku Abubakar may assume that Nigeria suffers from a collective dementia that has forgotten the past so soon.
There is an adage that says, he who comes to justice and equity must come with clean hands. The same forces that enthroned bad governance in Nigeria factored in the APC, through a metamorphosis, want to rebirth another Nigeria through the ADC.
In ideological terms, this does not make sense, the ADC Protest is the same old thing of old wine in a new wine bottle.
If Nigeria must experience a change, let it come through some revolutionary medium that will not exploit the people’s trust and betray them once in power.
Over the past decades, the betrayal of public trust, exploiting the innocence of the people, perhaps the naivety of the people, is what we have seen and experienced through the circles of bourgeoisie metamorphosis and political leadership recruitment.
By Raphael Atuu
Benue State, fondly referred to as the “Food Basket of the Nation,” was created on February 3, 1976, by the military administration, carved out of the old Plateau State. From its inception, the state was administered by a succession of military administrators, followed by civilian governors in Nigeria’s evolving political landscape.
Over the decades, leadership passed through several hands each leaving varying degrees of impact on the state’s trajectory.
In its early years, Benue was widely regarded as a peaceful and united society. Communities coexisted in harmony, bound by shared values, cultural pride, and a strong sense of collective identity.
The economy was largely driven by agriculture, with fertile lands producing yams, rice, cassava, and other staple crops. Institutions like the Benue Cement Company also contributed to economic activity and employment.In those days, the government was distant from the daily struggle of the average citizen. Few people concerned themselves with the affairs of Government House. Wealth and dignity were derived from hard work, farming, trading, and craftsmanship not political patronage.
The people spoke with one voice, celebrated their traditions with pride, and upheld communal respect as a guiding principle.
However, the return of democracy in 1999 marked a significant turning point, one that would reshape the state’s social and political fabric in ways few anticipated.
With democratic governance came new opportunities, but also new challenges. Politics gradually became the most attractive path to wealth and influence.
For many, Government House transformed from a symbol of public service into a gateway to personal enrichment.
The perception of politics shifted from service to self-interest.
As political competition intensified, unity began to erode. Divisions along ethnic, local government, and party lines deepened. The once cohesive voice of the Benue people became fragmented, often drowned in partisan conflicts and power struggles.
Perhaps more troubling was the subtle transformation in societal values.
The Benue man, once admired for courage, resilience, and industry, began though not universally to exhibit tendencies toward dependency and political loyalty over merit.
Sycophancy started to replace integrity, and the dignity of labor was gradually overshadowed by the allure of quick gains through political connections.
Elected officials rose to positions of authority and influence, becoming key decision-makers in society.
Yet, for many citizens, the dividends of democracy remained elusive. Infrastructure development lagged, agricultural potential remained underutilized, and poverty persisted despite abundant natural resources.
The irony is striking: a state so richly endowed, yet struggling to translate its potential into tangible progress.
Beyond economics, insecurity and communal clashes in recent years have further strained the social fabric.
The peace that once defined Benue has been challenged, forcing many communities to confront displacement and uncertainty.
While these issues are complex and multifaceted, the role of political leadership in addressing or failing to address them cannot be ignored.
So, where did the politicians get it wrong?
They lost sight of the essence of leadership service to the people. Governance became more about control than development, more about personal gain than collective good.
Long term planning gave way to short term political calculations. Investments in agriculture, which should have remained the backbone of the state’s economy, were neglected in favor of less sustainable ventures.
Moreover, the failure to foster unity and inclusive governance widened the gap between leaders and the led. Politics became a tool for division rather than a platform for progress.
Yet, all hope is not lost.
Benue still possesses immense potential, fertile land, vibrant culture, and resilient people, what is needed is a return to the values that once defined the state: hard work, unity, integrity, and community driven development.
Leadership must be reimagined, not as an avenue for wealth, but as a responsibility to uplift the people.
The story of Benue State is not just one of decline it is also one of possibility.
With the right vision, commitment, and collective will, the state can reclaim its place as a model of peace, productivity, and progress.
The question remains: will its leaders and its people rise to the occasion?
If you want, I can.
By Tanimu Yakubu
Nigeria is not collapsing; it is confronting long-avoided economic realities. The current hardship, though undeniable, reflects a deliberate process of correcting structural imbalances that have persisted for years. Distress is evident, but it must not be mistaken for systemic failure.
Countries in true economic collapse do not unify exchange rates, rebuild external reserves, regain access to international capital markets, or improve fiscal performance.
Nigeria, despite significant pressures, is making measurable progress across these indicators.Ending a Distorted Economic Order
For years, Nigeria operated under an economic framework that projected stability while masking deep inefficiencies.
Artificially suppressed fuel prices, multiple exchange rate windows, and expansionary fiscal practices incentivized arbitrage over productivity.These distortions disproportionately benefited a narrow segment of the population while imposing hidden costs on the broader economy.
Their removal has revealed the true cost structure of the system. While this transition has triggered inflationary pressures, it has also restored policy transparency and enhanced the credibility of economic management.
Strengthening the Fiscal Base
Recent fiscal data indicates a strengthening foundation. Distributable revenues to the Federation Account have risen by over 40 percent following subsidy removal, reflecting improved remittance discipline and reduced leakages.
Nigeria’s public debt remains below 30 percent of GDP, a relatively moderate level compared to peer emerging markets, according to the International Monetary Fund. Meanwhile, external reserves have surpassed $40 billion, based on figures from the Central Bank of Nigeria.
At the subnational level, increased fiscal inflows are enabling more consistent salary payments, with some states introducing inflation adjustments, an indication of gradually expanding fiscal space.
Inflation: A Transitional Challenge
Inflation remains the most immediate and visible consequence of ongoing reforms. It is being driven by exchange rate adjustments, energy price corrections, and longstanding supply-side constraints.
Global experience suggests that such inflationary spikes are often temporary when reforms are sustained. The greater risk lies not in reform itself, but in policy inconsistency or reversal.
Interpreting the Present Moment
Public frustration is both expected and understandable. Nigerians are justified in demanding tangible improvements in living standards. However, it is important to distinguish between short-term hardship and systemic collapse.
Nigeria’s institutional framework remains intact, fiscal capacity is improving, and macroeconomic reforms are actively progressing. This phase represents adjustment, not disintegration.
From Stabilisation to Impact
The next phase of reform must translate macroeconomic gains into measurable improvements in citizens’ welfare.
Strategic investments in healthcare, education, and targeted social protection will be essential to sustaining public confidence.
Ultimately, the credibility of these reforms will be judged not by policy intent, but by their impact on everyday life.
Conclusion: The Imperative of Consistency
Nigeria has long recognised its economic challenges; what has often been lacking is sustained policy execution. The greatest threat at this juncture is not reform fatigue, but reform reversal.
Abandoning the current course would erode credibility, deter investment, and reintroduce the very distortions that hindered growth.
This moment demands patience, discipline, and resolve. Nigeria is not collapsing, it is undertaking a necessary correction and laying the foundation for a more resilient economic future.
Tanimu Yakubu is DG, Budget Office of the Federation.
Otu, Retired Naval Chief Bag UNICAL Honorary Degrees
ShareFrom Ene Asuquo, Calabar The Governor of Cross River State, Prince Bassey Otu, has been conferred with an honorary doctorate...
Children Registration Gives Legal Identity, Says Benjamins-Laniyi
ShareBy Laide Akinboade, Abuja The Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mandate Secretary, of women Affairs secretariat, Dr. Adedayo Benjamins-Laniyi on Monday...
Otu, Retired Naval Chief Bag UNICAL Honorary Degrees
ShareFrom Ene Asuquo, Calabar The Governor of Cross River State, Prince Bassey Otu, has been conferred with an honorary doctorate...
Misuse of Antibiotics Driving Drug-resistant TB – Expert
ShareA Professor of Paediatrics, Nnamdi Onyire said the growing misuse of antibiotics in treating common cough is fuelling the emergence...
New FRSC Sector Commander Pledges to Strengthen Road Safety Operations in Delta
ShareThe new Sector Commander, Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC), Delta Sector Command, said he would consolidate on existing achievements while...
Police Arrest Officers, Drivers, POS Operators for Abduction, Extortion in Edo
ShareFrom Ikhazuagbe Ojeikere, Benin Operatives of the Edo State Police Command said four of its officers and three others have...
NDLEA Arrest Five Suspects with Illicit Drugs worth N724.5m in Edo
ShareFrom Ikhazuagbe Ojeikere, Benin The Edo State Command of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) has intercepted 7,245kilograms of...
Fadahunsi Rolls Out Food Items, Others in Osun East
ShareFrom Ayinde Akintade, Osogbo In a massive effort to tackle hunger and hardship, Senator Francis Adenigba Fadahunsi, representing Osun East...
Road Projects: Kaduna Targets Improved Access to FUAS, ABU
ShareKaduna State Government has intensified road infrastructure development at the Federal University of Applied Sciences, Kachia, and Ahmadu Bello University...
UNIABUJA to Graduate 12,624 Students at 29th, 30th Convocation Ceremonies
ShareA total of 12,624 students are set to graduate as the University of Abuja holds its combined 29th and 30th...