AS 2027 POLLS CAMPAIGNS BEGIN…

Electioneering should be defined by issues and programmes

Now that the formal political campaigns for the 2027 general election have officially kicked off, we least expect that our politicians will obey certain ground rules. As the frequent eruptions have demonstrated, the fault lines in our federation are many. Inter communal relations remain fraught with occasional conflicts and intense anger. Non state actors and sectarian extremist groups remain active while many citizens are still frozen in their ethnic, religious and regional cocoons. We therefore expect political gladiators to be more conscious of the sensitivities of our fragile nationhood on the campaign podiums. In this environment, the utterances of politicians could easily become tools for magnifying artificial differences and aggravating latent tension. 

To the extent that mutual respect and an understanding of our common differences are vital ingredients for national cohesion and unity, our politicians must not allow a seasonal campaign frenzy to undermine our hard-won unity.  A fact-based knowledge of national issues should inform the policies and programmes that political combatants advance to help their cause. Our public must see their campaigns as friendly fire, not as hostile exchanges.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) once carried out a survey which revealed that prices of machetes usually go up before the campaign seasons and drop immediately after elections. It has long been established that there is a nexus between do-or-die politics and organised crime in Nigeria. Over the years many cults and criminal gangs have owed their origins to political campaign organisations. It is also a fact that most of these notorious criminals usually graduate from motor parks to political thuggery before eventually venturing into the more lucrative business of robbery, kidnapping, and banditry. Considering what transpired in the recent Osun State gubernatorial election, everything must also be done to eschew violence during this campaign season.

Besides, anti-corruption agencies, especially the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), should also steer clear of acts that could be deemed partisan like it also happened during the recent Osun State gubernatorial election. While we subscribe to the notion that the law should be no respecter of persons, it is also important that the EFCC be sensitive in their operations. For these agencies to be seen as credible by the public they serve, attempts to intimidate or blackmail individuals and groups because of their political persuasions should be avoided.

 Meanwhile, Section 92 of the 2026 Electoral Act (as amended) prescribes limits to how much candidates can spend on their elections, but there is neither a way to monitor such expenses nor a method to enforce compliance. According to the electoral act, a presidential candidate can spend a maximum amount of N10 billion while the spending limit for a governorship candidate is N3 billion. A senatorial candidate is allowed to spend up to N500 million while that of a House of Representatives candidate is pegged at N250 million. For State Assembly election, the limit is N100 million. The neglect of the relevant campaign financing limits and what candidates do with such donated monies even after elections has deepened the impression that what obtains in Nigeria is a transactional political culture with in-built ethos for corruption.

 As it is, the issue of campaign expenses in Nigeria is largely riddled with unwholesome practices. In a milieu where political godfathers sponsor candidates for executive offices as business investments for which they expect bountiful rewards, there is an urgent need to reduce the corrupting influence of anonymous money. In almost all instances where an incumbent president or governor is seeking re-election, public money is lavishly used. More worrying is what the accumulated funds are most often used for: to buy consumables which are distributed at campaign rallies, pay off some local operatives, procure the services of muscle men, compromise electoral and security officials, and buy votes on election days. Our democracy can be meaningful if campaigns for public offices are tied to issues and programmes.