The Nigerian president is a very strong person. Even more so than the US president, he is powerful. It’s common to refer to the American president as “the most powerful man on earth.” But only in terms of foreign policy, where he has unrestricted authority. Given the nature of federalism, the separation of powers, and the strength of checks and balances in the US, the president faces enormous domestic constraints.
Nigeria’s president, in contrast, enjoys unrestricted executive authority. The court, which is vulnerable to presidential bullying, is normally a toothless bulldog, and federal agencies are completely subservient to the presidency and lack any sense of independence. The National Assembly typically serves as an executive lapdog and rubber stamp. the United States? They are, after all, agents of the Federal Government, which may make things tough for any state that isn’t on good terms with it. It makes sense why some consider the president of Nigeria to be “next to God”!
The president, who would have such vast, unrestricted powers over the country in light of the aforementioned circumstances and the fact that Nigeria is fragile and deeply polarised along regional, ethnic, and religious lines, must now win a resounding victory in an election that unquestionably reflects the free expression of the will of voters across the nation. It would exacerbate Nigeria’s division, volatility, and fragility if a “president” were to emerge under these conditions following a flawed and discredited election.
Bola Tinubu, Nigeria’s current president, was elected through a deeply tainted and discredited election that failed to pass basic transparency and credibility tests, as made abundantly clear by the EU EOM’s final report on Nigeria’s 2023 general elections, which was recently published. Naturally, Tinubu’s administration disregarded the report and even paid for demonstrators to occupy the Abuja headquarters of the EU. It is difficult to fault the report’s meticulous examination, nevertheless.
Tinubu’s fans will undoubtedly continue to slander, threaten, and humiliate me on social media, but this editorial speaks the truth to power. I admire a country, the United States, where a former president was charged with a felony and fined for a sexual offence done more than 30 years ago, and I live in a country, the United Kingdom, where a prime minister was removed from office and expelled from parliament for lying. However, political leaders in Nigeria are exempt from legal and institutional oversight. That is unacceptable, especially when their actions jeopardise Nigeria’s long-term progress, unity, and stability.
As frequent readers of this column are aware, I strongly disagreed with Tinubu being president because of his severe integrity flaws and because I firmly believe he is morally and ethically unqualified to lead Nigeria. However, if he had triumphed in a genuine election that was free, fair, and transparent, I would have accepted his leadership. However, it didn’t, and the EU EOM report supports the findings of other really impartial observers—not biassed ones.
Naturally, I will respect the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the presidential election petitions. I sincerely hope that it isn’t based on some twisted public policy theory or legal jargon, but rather on a logical and fair interpretation of the substantive and procedural law. Technicalities must not take precedence over substantive fairness and process ideals for the decision to be legitimate. So be it if the Supreme Court decides to order a new round!
Strangely, some have claimed that it doesn’t matter who becomes president or how he does it as long as he succeeds since Tinubu become Nigeria’s de facto leader! Those who make that claim might as well add that a military dictatorship is irrelevant as long as it is helpful, capable, and effective. After all, what’s the difference between gaining control through a gun and a crooked election that subverts the will of the people?
The truth is that those who argue that “performance matters,” as if performance were a universal standard, will entrench fraudulent elections in Nigeria, obstruct democratic advancement, and entrap the nation in a cycle of ever-deepening instability.
which brings up the EUEOM report once more. Its fundamental argument is that the elections in Nigeria don’t take place on an even playing field. This is crucial because a level playing field is essential to any competitive sport or game. Because of this, any athlete who wins a medal through cheating will always have the medal revoked if discovered, and any referee who is biassed or inept will always suffer public ridicule and could have his licence revoked. Why then do we only hear the taunt, “Go to court,” when someone “wins” in Nigeria’s presidential election by manipulating it when the electoral agency, INEC, is obviously biassed and completely incompetent?
Consider the umpire. The appointment of INEC commissioners and resident electoral commissioners, according to the EU EOM, “makes the electoral institution open to perceptions of favouritism.”That is accurate, right? As national and local electoral commissioners, the former president Buhari appointed APC supporters. Rotimi Amaechi, a former governor of Rivers State and current minister of transport, recently cautioned Buhari in the public eye not to re-appoint Professor Mahmood Yakubu as INEC chairman because “he is Tinubu’s supporter.” The truth is that unless INEC is completely independent from the executive branch and the ruling party, Nigeria won’t have credible elections.
Relevant News
EU report: “They failed to stop Tinubu,” the LP warns the APC, “stop embarrassing Nigeria.” FFK dismisses EU polling report for 2023
The presidency rejects the EU’s general election report for 2023
Regrettably, INEC cannot avoid accusations of bias in the current elections. Despite the ridiculous justification of “technical problems,” it is highly suspicious that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Results Viewing Portal (IReV) functioned in other elections but not in the presidential. Only 31% of the presidential election results published on the IReV system were technically and mathematically correct, according to the EU EOM assessment.How can an election be trustworthy if the results show such significant disparities?
Everyone who is an unbiased observer will agree with the other conclusions of the EU EOM report. Consider the fact that incumbency abuse was widespread. If Buhari and the majority of the current governors were to undergo a lie detector test, it would reveal that they had influenced INEC officials and the security services in order to gain election advantages. Additionally, despite the fact that the Electoral Act forbids “the use of state machinery to the advantage or detriment of any political party or candidate,” the incumbents flagrantly misappropriated official resources to tilt the playing field.
Don’t kill the messenger, then. The EU EOM was accurate! It matters because Nigeria’s president is simply too strong to win in corrupt and delegitimized polls!
