INEC and the Question of Legitimacy for the 2027 Election

When I reflect on the upcoming 2027 election, I liken President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s approach to someone trying to access their own home by climbing over the fence. Sure, entry might be possible, but onlookers may call in authorities, leaving everyone to wonder why one would resort to climbing over the fence in the first place. This encapsulates the fundamental issue surrounding the 2027 election: legitimacy.

To begin, it is vital to look back at Nigeria’s electoral process in 2023. Although it wasn’t without flaws, claiming an absolutely perfect election is unrealistic in contemporary Nigeria, particularly given our rampant social issues. Nonetheless, the elections in 2023 are generally regarded as legitimate, primarily due to the competitive nature of the elections. For instance, in January 2022, around a year prior to the election, the political landscape seemed to revolve around two dominant parties: the ruling APC and the primary opposition PDP. However, by mid-2022, following party primaries, there emerged four significant candidates representing four distinct political parties in the presidential race.

Notably, when candidates like Peter Obi and Dr. Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso felt dissatisfied with the PDP's ability to propel their ambitions, they effortlessly transitioned their supporters to other parties without facing scrutiny from the EFCC or the ICPC, which typically might impede such movements in the name of anti-corruption. Importantly, the courts did not interfere with unjust decisions that would have stifled political activity for opposition parties and their candidates, nor did the late President Muhammadu Buhari intervene in the electoral process.

Moreover, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) maintained the recognition of opposition parties' leaderships and refrained from presenting biases towards certain factions or selectively endorsing court rulings that seemingly benefited only the ruling party. Consequently, as Nigeria approached the elections, a true multi-party system emerged, featuring numerous viable candidates and parties, thereby upholding the electoral process's competitiveness and solidifying the legitimacy of the APC's eventual victory. Conversely, the current situation reveals a landscape dominated by a single political party, which starkly undermines the prospect of a legitimate electoral process.

Additionally, the 2023 elections were deemed legitimate thanks to INEC's positive institutional reputation leading up to polling day. This consensus is crucial: the confidence that voters, observers, and political stakeholders possess in INEC plays a pivotal role in determining electoral integrity and legitimacy. How this perception evolves post-election is a different narrative, which I will address shortly.

When APC representatives proposed that electronic voting systems be overseen by the Nigeria Communications Commission (NCC), a government agency, the Nigerian populace rejected this notion and insisted that INEC should oversee any electronic transmissions. Notably, during a keynote address at the 20th Daily Trust Dialogue in January 2023—an event I had the privilege to moderate—the then U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Mary Beth Leonard, expressed confidence in INEC’s capacity to conduct fair elections. This endorsement received widespread media coverage, garnering no opposition.

These occurrences indicate that trust in INEC was robust leading up to the 2023 elections. However, the integrity and impartiality of INEC’s leadership have since come under scrutiny, even from those who would typically be considered government allies. The reputational challenges facing INEC raise questions about the viability of its chairman continuing in office, given the significance of ensuring legitimacy in the approaching 2027 election.

On the surface, the constricted political terrain in Nigeria seems influenced by a myriad of actors such as the judiciary, anti-corruption agencies, as well as the internal struggles of opposition organizations—factors allegedly exacerbated by the ruling party. However, these elements individually do not dictate the electoral outcome; they only impact the situation when INEC fails to perform its role as a neutral arbitrator. This brings us to a critical issue of perception: INEC is responsible for ensuring the fairness and credibility of the electoral rules in play, independent of any court judgments it claims to uphold.

Therefore, the current actions of INEC are immensely significant. Its readiness to enforce court rulings that alter party leadership, together with its vague stance on essential matters like electronic results transmission, sends concerning messages. Even if these maneuvers are legally defensible, collectively they may undermine the electoral process's legitimacy. If INEC is perceived as narrowing the political landscape to only favor the ruling party, legitimacy may be forfeited before voters even step into the polling booths, regardless of the court verdicts.

Lastly, the 2023 election was marked by a degree of fairness and transparency. The controversies surrounding the elections mirror the pattern of election denialism akin to what was seen in the 2020 U.S. elections. For Nigeria in 2023, this contention rested on a flawed premise: that a divided party (the PDP) could emerge victorious with any of its fractions.

In reality, the 2023 election signified the culmination of gradual improvements witnessed in Nigerian elections since 2011. For context, the gap between the winning and losing candidates provides insight into electoral fraud in Nigeria. During the 2003 elections, that difference was 12 million votes. By 2007, it grew to 18 million. However, in 2015 and 2019, with Buhari and former President Jonathan against Atiku Abubakar, the margins were under three million. In 2023, the gap decreased further to below two million votes.

The number of seats secured by opposition parties also reflects the election's fairness, where 2023 marked a record achievement for the opposition with five previously under-recognized parties (LP, NNPP, SDP, ADC, ADP) conquering 70 National Assembly seats for the first time. Additionally, the NNPP and LP won governorship positions, while seven sitting governors lost their senatorial races. Hence, although the election faced both legal and narrative challenges, its legitimacy remained intact.

In this discussion, I aim to emphasize how elections should be won—by ensuring the outcome’s legitimacy. President Tinubu, as an incumbent within a patronage-driven political culture, should be capable of achieving victory in a transparent and equitable contest. Instead, his administration appears to favor a convoluted strategy that risks undermining the very essence of democratic principles.

Should the trend of stifling opposition and constraining the political arena persist as we approach the elections in 2027, the outcome may predictably lack any controversy due to the absence of a meaningful contest. Ultimately, Tinubu may claim victory; however, he would simultaneously forfeit Nigerian democracy, and likely his historical standing. A timely caution remains necessary for all involved.