By Lasisi Olagunju

I found myself inventing that verse as today’s headline. The verse came sounding like “The Lord is my shepherd/ I Shall not want…” The twenty-third Psalm. Yesterday was Easter Sunday; today is Easter Monday. All Judases are shamed.

Life here is bitter as brine. The green pastures are withered. The still waters are poisoned. More and more, victims fall in undeclared wars in Benue and Plateau. Terrorists rebrand and relaunch in Borno and Niger and Zamfara. The Commander-in-Chief is absent in flesh, in body and soul. But I must be quiet, because the president is my brother.

Some twenty-something years ago, one of us (I can’t remember who the person was) blurted out a question:

“The name of your governor, ‘Alamiyeseigha’, reads like a tongue-twisting clause. What does it mean?”

Our guest was the Bayelsa State Commissioner for Information.

The guest sat up, grinned and looked round the Tribune boardroom. She then smiled out the answer.

“It means God is never wrong. Just like my name, ‘Benamaisia’, means brother is never wrong.”

I thought that was deep. I quickly got it stored in the depth of my brain. True. God is never wrong. But brother? An argument would have ensued but that commissioner, Mrs Ruth Benamaisia Opia, went into an intelligent analysis of how and when a brother is deemed not wrong: She said a brother is never wrong in the presence of outsiders. She might be right. Among her audience were a people whose own culture instructs them to first deal with the fox before spanking the cock. They also say you don’t sell your brother cheap; if you do, you won’t be able to buy him back expensive.

“Kin-blood is not spoiled by water.” That is how 12th-century German poet, Heinrich der Glîchezære, couches it in his epic, Reinhart Fuchs (Reynard the Fox). I am supposed to love and be loyal to the king because he is my brother. Is my brother, the king, supposed to love and be loyal to me? Christian scholar, T. L. Westow, in his ‘Who is my Brother?’ published in May 1964, declares that “nobody can eat for somebody else.” That may be true in biology; it is not true in politics. What do you think my brother, the president, is doing on my behalf in Europe? He has been there for the past two weeks.

Because my brother is the president, he can do anything and get away with it. And he has been doing it. The president is the law. He keeps a very good company in the US President Donald Trump. Last week, Trump complained about his country’s Federal Reserves chair, Jerome Powell. “I’m not happy with him. I don’t think Powell is doing the job. He will leave if I ask him to.” An American reacted: “Why has anybody but Trump run anything? Just get rid of congress, senate, Supreme Court, etc. He’s so smart; he can run everything.” It is too late to recommend the same here. President Bola Tinubu is the smartest somebody ever created. He had been the law long before he became president. Presidential powers have only enlarged his coast, and we are happy and grateful for the answered prayers.

I have no problem with Tinubu staying put abroad. The only issue I have with it is that in his absence, Muhammadu Buhari’s eunuch is having an erection again. I don’t like that. It is risky. While I agonise over the resurgent eunuchs, I will not stop stopping critics from hampering my president with the constitution and all its provisions. Scrap the law, scrap the courts, the legislature, everything; sack the governors, give the president their functions and budgets. Make him President and Governor General of the federation. Trash all the scrapped. Scrap Abuja and let the super man reign from wherever he finds comfort. Why not?

My brother, the president, is in Europe, running the country effectively unseen like an unseen poem. It is my duty as a brother to expose the ignorance of critics who say the president residing abroad is immoral and illegal. I should tell such critics that the people who created Nigeria started Nigeria with that arrangement. When the two Nigerias were brought together in 1914, the first ‘president’ (nicknamed Governor General) reigned six months in Nigeria; four and a half months in London; one and half months cruising on the high seas. Lord Lugard gave his employers that condition and he got it, he maintained and enjoyed it for several years. A befitting office with full complement of competent staff was even provided for him righ  t inside the colonial office in London. That is our history.

Shakespeare says there is no darkness but ignorance. Ignorant critics say my brother does not delegate as the constitution dictates. They should read history. Our president’s ancestor, Lord Lugard had two deputies called Assistant Governors. From 1914 when he took charge till he left in 1919, he delegated neither power nor responsibility to any of them. There were complaints and grumblings, home and abroad; the Governor-General ignored them all. Nothing happened. Nothing will happen if President Tinubu keeps that foundational tradition alive. He has a duty to run his government undisturbed from the Moon, even from inside the Sun.

If my brother is not ready for home, it is my duty to beg him to stay back wherever he is. It is also my duty to attack his attackers here. He should not rush home after these Easter holidays simply because sibling rivalry is pushing some of our bad brothers to demand his immediate homecoming. The president should work harder in London – or cross the English Channel back to Paris, and continue where he stopped.

Last week, from wherever he was, the president set up an eight-man committee on his pet census project, five out of the eight members are from his sitting room. Because he is my brother, I am not supposed to mention this and say he was wrong to use his household to rule the whole world.

For those who are not happy that five brothers out of eight make the list of Tinubu’s census committee, I recommend, in the spirit of this Easter season, ‘The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard’. It is a Bible passage:

“Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.

“And He said to her, ‘What do you wish?’”

“She said to Him, ‘Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom.’” (Mathew 20:20,21).

What you just read is a brother to the right; his blood brother to the left. The Master was number one. The brothers would be numbers two and three. And there were twelve disciples. The two brothers were John and James. Whose cousins or nephews were they? Find out whose sister their mother, Salome, was.

Some neighbours are already saying that without them in 2027 my brother will be sent back home empty-handed. They should shut up, and go and listen to Juju music Commander Ebenezer Obey. He warns that no one should vow that without them their friend won’t find food to eat. They should not say that again  Sustenance is God’s. He is the only provider. If they want war in 2027, my brother will give them. I will watch the bull fight; my popcorn is ordered.

So, those who are not happy with my brother’s nepotism should go drink iced water. They should wait for their own time. Nigeria is a tripod. Every good and every bad must get entered in the country’s balance sheet. Muhammadu Buhari had his own fill. We shouted, but Bayajidda II pointed us to his kurmo (deaf) ears. Goodluck Jonathan had aides who helped him do his own so well that he became Azikiwe.

I read Keith Ferrazzi’s ‘Never Eat Alone: And Other Secrets to Success.’ But I will not join outsiders to quote that book and warn the solo man that he “can’t get there alone” and “in fact, can’t get very far at all.” I will also refrain from reading ‘What do you think of eating alone?’, a recent piece written by The Korea Times’ senior advisor, Park Moo-jong. There is a spice in that piece. It is from Desmond Morris, English zoologist, ethologist and author of ‘The Naked Ape’: “One may eat alone in the privacy of one’s own home, but to eat alone in a public place is to invite suspicion of personal failure at best and deviancy at worst.” If the president were not my brother, I would have expanded that verdict to accommodate what critics say of him here. I would have said that Nigeria is a public, multi-regional, multi ethnic entity and that no group, no matter how smart, or wise or vicious can kidnap Nigeria and hold it hostage for long. But the president is Yoruba and Muslim like me, so I won’t undermine my brother. I won’t join those who say that even the British who created the country did not succeed in putting it in purdah for as long as they wished.

President Bola Tinubu is a brother to some because he is a Muslim. To some others he is a brother because of the language he speaks — his mother tongue – Yoruba. Still, to some others, he is a brother because of the fraternity of politics he leads. Common to these concentric circle of brotherhoods is the charge that his wrong must not be said from any mouth there. Scores killed in Plateau, 56 murdered in Benue, the Commander-in-Chief is rocking the cities of Paris and London. He must not be accused of playing Nero while his Rome burns. Our brother must never be said to be wrong.

This president campaigned and pledged to renew our hopes in a better Nigeria. Where are the promised “sparkling springs” and the “babbling brooks”? A brother has no right to question his brother, the president. If he is your brother, tell him not that he lives in an illusory world where failure is praiseworthy success and poverty is wealth. The people’s suffering notwithstanding, rejoice with your brother.

A brother is never wrong. Like the anonymous American army major said in the Vietnam war, there is nothing bad to have my brother destroy the town in order to save it. The king can invent his own reality and call us to project it for the world to admire and applaud. We will obey him; he is our brother.

Poverty unravels homes; policies upend businesses. But what is real is unreal because the president is my brother. We hear politicians of various ailments hail the president for making Nigeria great again. Even some opposition governors are rushing into his Noah’s Ark. Reality has different versions. When it is bad as we have it, regime washers create a positive one and command me to praise it. They say we must celebrate their reality because it is done everywhere, even in America where we borrowed this system that sells the freeborn into slavery. If that sounds interesting to you, read ‘Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People’ by Dana D. Nelson. It was published in 2008 long before Donald Trump came with his ideology of alternative truth.

You see them on TV boasting of unprecedented achievements and daring you to contradict them. They did and do it where we copied our constitution. Towards the 2004 presidential election in the US, a Bush administration official with the swag of a conquistador told a New York Times reporter, Ron Suskind: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality judiciously, as you will, we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” This sounds like what my brother’s government can say in Nigeria. The government is a pack of confidence men. We – you and I – exist to only study, write and talk about what they do.

My brother is dining alone somewhere across the Mediterranean Sea. Some people say he is in Paris, France; some say he is in London, United Kingdom. I am supposed to thank him for eating on my behalf abroad while I yawn at home. As I do that, I should also ask what will end anyone’s ‘eat alone’ regime if they do not change? An Arabian proverb speaks on the consequences of fencing off others from a communal feast. They say he who eats alone vomits alone. They also say he who eats alone chokes alone. The Tigrigna of Eritrea and northern Ethiopia say: He who eats alone dies alone. The NURTW has a more radical version. Its members shout: “Eat alone, Go away!”

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

On the evening of 5 April 2012, the prime-time bulletin on the television news of the Malawi Broacasting Corporation (MBC), announced to the country that the president, Ngwazi Professor Bingu wa Mutharika, “had been taken ill and had been flown to South Africa for specialist treatment.” At another end of the capital city, Lilongwe, a presidential convoy was on its way to the Kamuzu International Airport (KIA) where an air ambulance awaited with instructions to fly to South Africa a president who was supposedly alive but unwell.

Earlier in the day, around 11:00 in the morning, Ngwazi Professor Bingu had collapsed while receiving in audience the Member of Parliament representing the south-east constituency of the capital city, Lilongwe, Agnes Penemulungu. The judicial commission of inquiry which later investigated what transpired thereafter received evidence which showed quite clearly that the presidential court had not prepared nor practiced for the possibility of a life-and-death emergency involving the president. Elton Singini, a senior judge, chaired the inquiry

The commission of inquiry established as a fact that the president died earlier in the day inside the ambulance en route to Kamuzu Central Hospital in the capital city. According to the inquiry report, “the President was brought in dead (BID) at Kamuzu Central Hospital [KCH] at around 11.25 in the morning” of 5 April.

At the time of the news bulletin announcing that he was to be flown to South Africa later on the same day, President Bingu had been dead for over eight hours. Despite being aware of this, the presidential retinue instructed staff at the hospital to apply cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on the presidential remains for over two hours. In the process, they crushed his rib-cage.

More was to follow. At the airport, the air ambulance pilots from South Africa declined to board the body, citing the fact that their permission was to fly with a patient not a dead body. High level conversations ensued between Lilongwe and Pretoria. It may have helped and was certainly relevant that Malawi’s Foreign Minister at the time was Peter Mutharika, President Bingu’s younger brother who was also intent on stepping into the shoes of his just deceased brother. Peter needed time to set the wheels in motion to leap-frog Vice-President, Joyce Banda in the succession stakes.

South Africa’s President, Jacob Zuma who had retired for the day had to be woken up to personally authorize the flight. Shortly after mid-night on 6 April 2012, the air ambulance took off for South Africa. In Malawi, the people were told their president was headed to South Africa for medical attention. In South Africa, the authorities knew that the air ambulance on its way from Lilongwe would arrive with the dead body of Malawi’s president. Shortly after 02:30 on 6 April, the aircraft landed at South Africa’s National Defence Force (SANDF) Waterkloof Airbase on the outskirts of Pretoria. From there, it was transferred to a mortuary.

The authors of all this malign chicanery designed to deceive the people of Malawi, however, forgot to also notify the processes of bio-chemistry. By the time the body arrived the morgue in South Africa, it had been “in the open without refrigeration for about 18 hours after death.” As a result, the very important and high profile invitees to the state funeral of President Bingu which took place on 23 April, 2012, had to endure the uncomfortable company of flies, as well as the majestic fragrance of human of putrefaction. As the report of the Justice Elton Singini Commission of Inquiry recorded, “the body had started decomposing as evidenced by the smell and a few flies hovering around.”

Four years earlier, in August 2008, Levy Mwanawasa, the president of neighbouring Zambia, died in a military hospital near Paris in France. While attending the summit of the African Union in Cairo, Egypt, on 29 June 2008, President Mwanawasa had collapsed following what was later understood to be an aneurysm (Stroke). He was stabilized there before being transferred to France where he died two months later. At his death, it came out that two years earlier, during his first term as president in 2006, President Mwanawasa had suffered an earlier stroke. For that, he received extended treatment in the United Kingdom. No one told Zambians.

The year after the death of President Mwanawasa, in June 2009, Omar Bongo, who had ruled Gabon for 41years died in hospital in Spain. When he left Libreville at the beginning of the previous month, his compatriots believed that their president, the doyen and favorite of France Afrique, was away on a working visit – a phrase all too familiar to Nigerians – to his favorite haunts in Europe. At his death, it emerged that more than one month before his death, President Bongo had been hospitalized for cancer treatment in Spain.

President Bongo was not the last long-serving African president to die in Spain. On 8 July 2022, former Angolan president, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, died also there after prolonged cancer treatment. Following his death, a family crisis broke out over his funeral, which delayed the repatriation of his remains to Luanda for more than one month. Six weeks after his death, in the third week of August 2022, a judge in Spain finally authorized the return of the body of President dos Santos to Angola for burial.

When he departed Nigeria on 2 April, the presidency in Abuja issued a statement claiming that Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Nigeria’s president, was off to France on a “short working visit”, during which he would “retreat to review the progress of ongoing reforms and engage in strategic planning ahead of his administration’s second anniversary.” They barely stopped short of telling Nigerians that their president was headed to Lourdes for the grace of its historic apparitions. President Tinubu is a Muslim; it was in the middle of the Christian season of Lent and no one had apparently bothered to advise him or his image makers that it is usually Christians who undertake two week-long retreats in the middle of this season.

The day after the end of the initially announced 14 days, the same presidential retinue disclosed that the president had relocated from France to the United Kingdom, from where he was doing an excellent job as Nigeria’s president in Europe.

The evidence seems inescapable that President Tinubu has significant health challenges and needs regular medical attention from doctors overseas. For this, his destination of choice is clearly France. In 22 months as president, Tinubu has made at least eight trips to the country under different guises for a cumulative period of over 60 days.

While that he’s been away this time, hundreds – if not more – had been killed in massacres in different parts of Nigeria. As president, Tinubu is also the Commander-in-Chief of Nigeria’s armed and security forces. Yet, from Europe, he is reported to be passing the buck to state governors to do that which only he has the tools to accomplish under Nigeria’s constitution.

Excluding the five years and three months of the presidency of Goodluck Jonathan from February 2010 to May 2015, Nigeria has had a presidency in near-permanent occupancy of sanatoriums overseas for 15 years. The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), which Tinubu led, was aggressively voluble in asking for candour on the health status of a terminally ill President Umaru Yar’Adua. After going into marriage with Muhammadu Buhari’s Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) to create All Progressives Congress (APC), they made virtue of unlooking when Buhari took up residence in foreign hospitals for much of his presidency.

It should be no news that a man of President Tinubu’s age is unwell. Those invested in concealing that reality from Nigerians are more interested in protecting their present perquisites than in the wellbeing of their principal or of the country.

The presidency is more than just an office. For those around the occupant of the office, it also means money, power, and privilege. To preserve it, most people in and around the presidency take liberties, sometimes, even with the wellbeing of their principal or with accountability to the people in whose name he holds office. For the country and even for the president, the wages of this interminable subterfuge are prohibitive.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

By Sylvester Udemezue

An Arise TV report of April 15, 2025, titled “Tinubu Tasks Governor Mutfwang to Confront Plateau Crisis Head-On, Says ‘Enough is Enough’,” stated that President Bola Tinubu directed Plateau State Governor Caleb Mutfwang to take decisive action to resolve the ongoing crisis and bring lasting peace to the state. This followed the killing of 54 people in Zike-Kimakpa community, Bassa Local Government Area, in an attack by gunmen—just a week after another assault in Bokkos Local Government Area that claimed 61 lives. The Vanguard Newspapers’ version under the headline, “Plateau, Benue Killings: Gov Alia Threatens, Tinubu Gives Mutfwang Marching Orders,” reporting that the President ordered Governor Mutfwang to take political action to resolve the crisis.

The directive has sparked mixed reactions, with some Nigerians criticizing it as an abdication of responsibility, questioning how governors can protect citizens without control over security agencies. Meanwhile, in response to the renewed wave of terror attacks across Nigeria, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has emphasized that tackling insecurity is a collective duty of both the Federal and State Governments. In a recent statement, the NBA President noted that Section 14(2)(b) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution mandates that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government,” and called on President Tinubu and state governors to implement coordinated security strategies focused on intelligence gathering, rapid response, and protecting vulnerable communities. See: “NBA to FG: Prioritise intelligence gathering to curb nationwide killings”; The Cable; April 15, 2025.

Below Is My Take On The Presidential Directive To Governor Mutfwang:

1. By issuing the directive, the Federal Government has effectively—and indirectly—acknowledged its inability to tackle worsening insecurity alone. In doing so, it also concedes its limitations and implicitly endorses the late Governor Akeredolu’s call for decentralized and localized policing, as highlighted in his 2022 statement. See: “National Insecurity Requires Decentralised and Localised Policing, says Ondo’s Akeredolu”; SkyDaily; July 4, 2022.
2. In view of this, and while I respectfully urge the Federal Government as a matter of national emergency, to intensify its efforts in addressing the escalating security challenges across parts of Nigeria, I submit that state governors must urgently take bold and proactive measures to confront insecurity within their jurisdictions. Specifically, governors should consider establishing state security outfits and equipping them with modern tools and resources necessary for effective security operations.
3. Given the President’s directive to Governor Mutfwang and the earlier advice by the Director General of the SSS/DSS, it’s reasonable to conclude that if states establish and equip security outfits, no federal authority would have grounds to object. Speaking earlier at the maiden annual lecture of the National Association of the Institute for Security Studies (AANISS) in Abuja, on 14 February 2025, the Director-General of the State Security Service (SSS), Oluwatosin Ajayi, had called for the arming of local communities for self-defence. He emphasized that communities should be empowered to act as the first line of defence against insurgency, ahead of intervention by the police, military, and other security agencies. See: “Insecurity: Why Nigerian communities should be armed for defence – SSS DG”: Premium Times; 14 February 2025.
4. Accordingly, instead of criticizing the President’s directive to Governor Mutfwang, the directive should be commended as a broad mandate empowering all state governors to address security challenges in their states. This move effectively cedes a part of the responsibility to the governors, leaving them with no excuse for inaction against insecurity and terrorism.
5. While the President’s directive is commendable, I believe the directive is incomplete. Mr President should go further by officially authorizing governors, as Chief Security Officers of their states, to procure modern arms — including AK-47s — and other necessary security equipment. Additionally, he must assure governors that there will be no interference in any lawful actions they take to combat insecurity. This is crucial, especially considering past tensions, such as the clash between the Federal Government and Governor Akeredolu over his efforts to arm the Amotekun Corps in Ondo State. See: (1) “Insecurity: Akeredolu Vows to Acquire Weapons for Amotekun, Blasts FG on Double Standards,” adding, “We believe in one Nigeria, but we cannot have one country, two systems.”; Premium Times; September 22, 2022. (2) “Insecurity: No State Has Approval to Procure Automatic Weapons–Presidency.” BusinessDay; September 29, 2022.
6. Meanwhile, it must be re-emphasized that the directive by Mr. President does not exonerate the Federal Government for its failings, nor does it imply that the Federal Government will now abandon the states to their fate in this regard. I believe the directive is aimed at establishing a first line of defence in the ongoing war against insecurity in Nigeria. I accordingly submit that President Tinubu’s directive must be understood in the context of an earlier declaration by the Director-General of the State Security Service (SSS), who stated that “the practical approach to mobilising people is that you have to get everyone involved.” The DG had further explained:

“You do not expect the Nigerian army, police, DSS, to protect every Nigerian. It is not going to work. How can you create the first line of defence? The military, police, and other security agencies have to deal with the bigger ones, like organised crime. It is unimaginable that any security agencies have the resources to deploy to every community. What we have to start experimenting with is how we can make the community be a fist in the first line of defense.We have to allow some level of armament for the communities and they can serve as the first line of defence”.

7. Conclusion And Recommendation: The REALITY is that, if we fail to rise now and defend ourselves against the terrorists who are determined to erase indigenous populations from Nigeria, we may one day wake up to find they have succeeded. The bandits and criminal elements wreaking havoc across the country are not acting randomly—they are on a deliberate mission. The sooner we acknowledge this harsh reality, the better. Prayers alone will not save us. The time for pragmatic, decisive action is now. We must take our destiny into our own hands if we hope to secure a safe and stable Nigeria for both present and future generations. Let us, therefore, be careful not to ignore this REALITY —because anyone who succeeds in ignoring reality will not succeed in escaping the consequences of doing so.

✔To be continued.

Respectfully,
§¢µð𝓮̂𝓶𝓮̂𝔃µ𝓮̂
Sylvester Udemezue (udems),
Legal Practitioner, Law Teacher, and Proctor of The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law, and Justice (A Public Interest Law Advocacy Group).

8021365545. [email protected]
            Date: 14 April 2025

Recently, the Edo Governorship Election Tribunal delivered judgement on the petition of the PDP Governorship candidate on the 2024 Edo State Governorship Election which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared the APC candidate as the winner. The PDP had complained that the APC did not win the highest number of valid votes and that the election was marred by substantial irregularity because of non-compliance with the strict requirements of the law. Shorn of legal jargon, the petition simply alleged that INEC rigged the election for the APC, that the APC candidate was nor duly elected.

The judgement of the tribunal is now a matter of public discourse because it is not just a judicial determination. It goes beyond that. It is a metaphor for what has become the fate of democracy in Nigeria. The problem with judicial involvement in election disputes in Nigeria is not because it is leading to the judicialization of politics. The problem is the gradual but determined destruction, through judicial decisions, of credible incentives for free and fair elections in Nigeria. If there is no strong incentive for the electoral management body to ensure free and fair elections, then the electoral system is not competitive. Without competitive elections, that is, elections were powerful incumbent could easily lose, it will be difficult to sustain democracy in Nigeria.

To understand what damage is being done to democracy in the sort of judgement delivered by the Edo State Governorship Election Tribunal, it is important to restate the fundamentals of democracy. At a time when the leading democracies in the world are drifting towards autocracy or fascism in their politics, simply restating the fundamentals of democracy becomes a revolutionary act. In a time when transitional democracies like Nigeria and some of the African countries are shifting towards electoral autocracy, it is important to remind ourselves the meaning of democracy.

There are three fundamentals features of democracy. The most fundamental is political equality. Democracy starts from the premise that citizens in a polity are equal. This equality finds expression in the simple fact that they jointly make laws that regulate their affairs and govern themselves. In the classical Greek City-state, Athens, the mythical home of democracy, political equality meant that all male citizens met at the Agora daily to deliberate and make laws and take turns periodically to sit in the magisterium to decide disputes. In the larger and complex modern society, political equality means that every adult citizen has a right to elect those who will sit in the modern Agora (parliament) and presidential villas to make laws and execute them. So, the first and foremost mark of a democracy is that the people choose their leaders as political equals. The concept of political equality has great implications for how the electoral system is designed and the management of the larger political institutions.

The second fundamental of democracy is the guarantee of freedom and liberty of the people. If the people are politically equal, it means that no one should violate the dignity of anyone. It means that the essence of government is that no one’s life is more valued in a fundamental sense than that of another. This is why Robert A. Dahl argued that “Democracy is not only a process of governing. Because rights are necessary elements of democratic political institutions, democracy is inherently also a system of rights. Rights are among the essential building blocks of democratic process of government ”.

The third fundamental of democracy is that the regime in power can easily be removed by the people whenever they are dissatisfied of its performance. This is what Robert Dahl calls ‘responsiveness’. The beauty of democracy is that those who occupy public offices know that if they do not satisfy the expectations of the people, they could lose their positions of power. This reality of losing elections and accepting the outcome is what Joseph Schumpeter identified as the essence of democracy and what makes democracy superior as an engine of economic and social development. The feasibility of removing non-performing public officials is the inherent feature of democracy that makes it a more reliable driver of economic growth than any other model of governance.

The device through which democracy achieves its purposes is elections. Modern democracy has been reduced to representative democracy. This is so because the only way we can achieve self-determination in a large and complex society is by having a few people representing the rest of us. These representatives are chosen through periodic elections. There are no more popular democracies. We have only representative democracies. The heart of representative democracy is elections. The most important work that citizen of democracies do is to elect representatives who thereafter act on their behalf on issues of public interest.

There are elements of good electoral system that leads to democracy. These elements are grouped together as elements of ‘free and fair’ elections. Free and fair elections have three elements that ensure that they can produce a democratic governance. The first element is that every adult citizen can register to vote. In many countries, 18 year olds are old enough to vote. Making good provisions for every adult citizen to register to vote is the most important element of free and fair elections. The second element is that voting must be voluntary and uncoerced. This is the notion of freeness. Political freedom requires that citizens make a choice of who governs in the atmosphere of freedom. This is also an aspect of competitiveness. Except there is freedom to freely associate politically and to vote whoever we like, there is no competitive elections. And this leads to the third element of a democratic electoral system, namely, that votes are accurately counted and announced. The integrity and credibility of the electoral system are hinged on the pillar of accurate counting of votes and announcement of results. We can attest that Stalin got it right when he noted that those who count the votes are more important than those who cast votes.

Competitiveness requires that opposition to incumbents enjoys the full complement of political rights to freely organize and mobilize against the incumbents. Where the political environment and voting process are suppressive and oppressive against some contestants for public offices, there are no democratic elections. The final fundamental element of a good electoral system is that the votes are accurately counted and announced. This is why, as Stalin once noted that those who count the votes are more important than those who cast the votes.

These core elements of a good electoral system are incorporated in our electoral laws and procedures. The Election Act of 2022 has improved on some of the deficiencies of the electoral system by providing safeguards against electoral fraud. Prevalent electoral frauds destroy the heart of electoral democracy because it substitutes the will of a few for the will of the people. Where elections are notoriously and consistently fraudulent, elections can no longer be competitive because the opposition will find it difficult to win the incumbents, even where there is clear demand by the electorates for change of leadership. Free and fair elections have inherent and instrumental values. Inherently, free and fair elections make real the notion of political equality and self-determination at the heart of democracy as a value and practice. If elections are not free and fair, it means that the will of the few will trump the will of the majority. It means that citizens are not self-determining because those who make and execute laws are not their representatives. Instrumentally, free and fair elections make strong the incentive structure of democratic governance that ensure political officeholders respond to the needs of the people because they could be removed from power next time.

The responsibility to realize these features of a good electoral system which are largely stated in our electoral law rests on INEC. Over the years, INEC has failed this responsibility. It is safe to say that since 1999 we have witnessed a continuing degeneration of the integrity of the electoral system. Each general election seems to be worse than the preceding one. This is as the technology of electoral management improves. This degeneration of the integrity of the electoral system as its technological and logistical quality improves has made many to argue that the problem with elections in Nigeria is human agency not law, not technology. In support of the institutional pessimists, the fact that despite the incorporation of real-time electronic transmission of results from the polling units to the election view portal (IreV) and the assurances by INEC leadership that had a foolproof technology platform, the 2023 presidential election was rigged because INEC shut down the IreV and refused to electronically transmit results. At the presidential tribunal, INEC argued that it had the discretion to go back on its commitment. INEC gutted its most secured guarantor of free and fair elections So, the 2023 presidential election failed because INEC decided to rig the election, not because technology failed or legal provisions were insufficient.

The reform of the electoral law in 2022 tried to improve the credibility and reliability of elections in Nigeria by eliminating the avenues for rigging. To ensure the accuracy of votes, it provides for biometric accreditation and mandates that where the result of votes in a polling unit is more the the total number of voters duly accredited through the biometric data capture system, the result is invalid. The law also mandates that before voting begins the polling officers should write down in a prescribed form the serial numbers and other details of voting materials, result sheets and other sensitive material. Failure to do this is a substantial non-compliance that nullifies the result from the polling unit. In Edo governorship election, INEC refused to follow these safeguards and declared a result wildly different from those it uploaded on its electronic platform. In this instance, a strong safeguard against electoral manipulation was gutted by compromised and corrupt officials. Human agency fails the test as it did in the 2023 presidential election.

The argument in support of the role of human agency in the failure of Nigeria’s electoral system to meet the requirements of free and fair elections does not end with the administrative management of elections. It extends to the judicial management of elections through electoral dispute settlement. The Electoral Act, 2022 provides a clear guide for effective and coherent judicial management of elections. It requires the court to nullify elections where these fundamental conditions of free and fair are not satisfied. But as the Edo Governorship Tribunal judgment shows, the human agency problem shows up again. Judges misconceive the essence of election jurisprudence and misdirect themselves to absolve corrupt electoral officers and approve clear electoral fraud. Through the wrongful exercise of human agency, the judiciary undermines the institutional basis of electoral democracy by encouraging electoral manipulation.   

By its judgment delivered on April 2, 2025, the Edo Governorship Tribunal perpetuates the judicial support for electoral mismanagement. In that judgement, the Edo State Governorship Tribunal dismissed the petition of the PDP candidate at the governorship election against INEC for declaring the APC candidate as the duly elected Governor of Edo State in the 2024 governorship election. The PDP candidate petitioned the Tribunal on the basis that the INEC invalidly declared the APC candidate as winner based on false invalid results. Evidence of independent poll watchers is that the declaration was fraudulently made with result sheets that were not the ones used at the polling units. INEC allegedly printed two different result sheets and used one to declare results unrelated to the real results uploaded to its result viewing portal. Also, many polling units had results where the total votes declared for the candidates were more than the number of accredited voters. This is despite that the Electoral Act mandates that the serial numbers of all the materials used for voting should be written in a prescribed form before voting to ensures the authenticity of the results. This safeguard was introduced because INEC officials often divert sensitive materials to politicians who write false election results which are used to declare electoral victory. To stop this, the Electoral Act in Section 73(2) requires that serial numbers of all voting papers, accreditation sheets and result sheets must be written down in prescribed form before voting. If this is not done the results are invalid. The tragedy of the Edo election is that all these safeguards were violated. INEC declared a winner with polling unit results different from polling unit results it had posted electronically in real-time from the polling unit after the voters were counted. Evidently, the result sheets used to declare the winner were fraudulently procured and not the only used for the election.

We need to break down the Edo election petition to properly understand the core issues and the legal position on each of them. The first issue concerns non-compliance, specifically under Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act, which mandates that before the commencement of polls, INEC must record the serial numbers of al sensitive materials such as BVAS machines, ballot papers, and result sheets, in the prescribed form. Failure to do so renders election in that polling unit automatically void. The Supreme Court in Augustine v. INEC clarified two crucial points. First, the prescribed form is Form EC25B, as specified by INEC itself. Second, that this is a ‘strict liability provision’. This means that the petitioner only needs to tender documentary evidence that the forms were not filled. The idea that only the ‘maker’ of the document can speak to the form, or that the polling unit witnesses must be called, is a legal fiction, with no grounding in Nigerian jurisprudence especially given recent reforms such as Section 137 of the Electoral Act, which states that oral evidence is unnecessary where the documents themselves show clear non-compliance.

The second main leg of the petition deals with the fraudulent collation of election results. This is perhaps the most damning allegation, because it highlights a systematic manipulation of results by the umpire himself. In the Edo election, INEC printed and deployed duplicate results sheets which were used to declare figures that bore no resemblance to what occurred at the polling units. This was of course established by TAP Initiative which took the results to a forensic examiner in South Africa. They have also petitioned ICPC to investigate and prosecute those found culpable.  At Polling units, the APC would score 31 votes. This is the result posted on the Irev (the results are still there), but in the declared result certified by INEC you would see the votes recorded for APC in a result sheet not signed by the agent as 431. The position of the Supreme Court on the matter is unambiguous. In the case of Uzodinma v INEC, the Supreme Court held that where improper collation is alleged there is no need to call for polling unit agents as witnesses; since the conduct of the elections is not in dispute.

In its judgment, the Tribunal rejected the evidence of wrong collation because the BVAS machines supplied by INEC were not operated to show the actual results. The Tribunal described the process as ‘dumping evidence before the court’. This is pathetic. The tribunal relied on the words of Justice Okoro to the effect that what is required to prove over-voting is to provide BVAS machine, the accreditation sheets, and result sheet. The Tribunal interprets this to mean that because the INEC’s official who presented the BVAS machine did not operate them, the court cannot presume about the evidence. The irony is that it was the court that ordered INEC tendered BVAS machines. Why did the court not mandate the INEC to operate the machine before the court? Why should INEC’s errors of failure be to the detriment of the victim of its manipulation? It is sad that the tribunal gives INEC the opportunity to violate the law and go free and punish the electorates and the victims of the manipulation by INEC and the politicians.

What the Edo Governorship Tribunal did in effect is to validate an electoral coup executed by INEC. They have allowed INEC to hijack the constitutionally protected power of the citizens to elect their leaders; and have endorsed the deployment of a system that allows INEC handpick winners of electoral contests without recourse to the will of the people. This is not about PDP and APC. This is simply about INEC and how they have become the greatest single threat against our democracy today. It is also about how election dispute adjudication is enabling INEC to continue to usurp the people’s power and play rough through crippling technicalities. If the judiciary allows the travesty that took place in Edo State on September 21, 2024, to stand, then we might as well all go home. 2027 and all other elections will be farcical, impotent rituals used by the ruling class to give the unilateral appointment of political officeholders the imprimatur of democratic responsibility.

This sort of judicial decision on election cases is problematic because they underline the weakness of electoral management system and electoral jurisprudence in Nigeria. If the electoral management process is done right, the judiciary will have little role to play. When it is done badly, and the judiciary too plays its role badly, it creates an incentive for the electoral management to continue to fluff its role in the electoral process at the behest of corrupt and desperate politicians. This vicious circle continues unless the appellate courts reassert its authority to force the electoral management body to do its job right under the law.

The judgement of the Edo Governorship Election Tribunal is a metaphor of how Nigeria has become an electoral autocracy no longer a democracy. Elections are a veneer on oligarchic grasp of power in defiance of what the people do or say.

• Dr. Amadi is the Director of Abuja School of Social and Political Thought

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.