By Idris Muhammed Abdullahi
(A Case of State Capture—Or Are Nigerians Already Captured?)
Nigeria’s democracy has never been perfect, but one principle has always stood at its centre. Those who seek public office must meet the standards set by law, and citizens must retain the power to hold them accountable when they do not. That principle now appears to be under quiet but serious threat.
A recent amendment to the Electoral Act 2022 has introduced a subtle but consequential shift in the legal framework governing election disputes. The change removed a key provision that previously allowed citizens to challenge an election on the ground that the person declared the winner was not qualified to contest. What may appear like a technical adjustment could carry serious implications for democratic accountability.
At first glance, the amendment may seem like one of those routine legislative edits buried inside complex legal drafting. Yet beneath the technical language lies a change that affects how citizens can question the legitimacy of those who occupy public office. The consequences of such a change could reach far beyond courtroom procedure.
What the Law Used to Say
Under Section 134(1)(a) of the Electoral Act 2022, an election could be questioned if the person declared winner was not qualified to contest the election at the time it was held. This provision served as an important democratic safeguard because it allowed citizens to challenge candidates who falsified credentials or failed to meet constitutional requirements. In essence, winning an election did not automatically erase questions about legitimacy.
What the Law Now Provides
Under the amended provisions, the grounds for questioning an election have been significantly narrowed. Election petitions may now rely mainly on allegations of corrupt practices, non-compliance with the Electoral Act, or claims that the declared winner did not receive the majority of lawful votes. What has disappeared is the explicit ground allowing citizens to challenge the election of a candidate who was not qualified to run in the first place.
This omission raises a troubling question about accountability in Nigeria’s electoral system. What happens when a candidate who should never have been eligible to contest an election is declared the winner? The law now appears less clear about how such situations can be addressed after the fact.
The Constitution Still Requires Qualifications
Nigeria’s Constitution continues to outline clear eligibility requirements for public office. For example, Section 131(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 requires anyone seeking the office of President to be educated up to at least the School Certificate level or its equivalent. Similar requirements apply to governors and members of the National Assembly.
However, laws only retain meaning when there are practical mechanisms to enforce them. When the ability to challenge eligibility after an election is removed, constitutional requirements risk becoming symbolic rather than enforceable safeguards. Over time, this could weaken the credibility of the rules governing who may seek public office.
A Slippery Path Toward State Capture
Political scientists describe state capture as a situation where powerful actors manipulate laws, policies, and institutions to serve private interests rather than the public good. Unlike ordinary corruption, which often involves illicit payments or diversion of funds, state capture occurs when the rules themselves are rewritten to limit scrutiny. When legal frameworks quietly shift in ways that shield political actors from accountability, citizens must begin asking difficult questions.
The concern here extends beyond electoral law to the broader health of democratic institutions. Small legal adjustments can gradually reshape how power operates within a political system. Over time, those adjustments may accumulate into structures that protect officeholders more than they protect voters.
Why Nigerians Should Care
Democracy is not only about voting during elections. It is also about ensuring that those who appear on the ballot are lawfully eligible to do so. When that assurance weakens, the legitimacy of the entire electoral process can come into question.
Removing the ability to challenge qualifications after an election could produce serious unintended consequences:
• Weakens deterrence against falsification of credentials, because candidates may feel less compelled to ensure their qualifications can withstand legal scrutiny.
• Diminishes the role of election tribunals as instruments of accountability, restricting their ability to review whether those declared winners were legally eligible to contest in the first place.
• Undermines public confidence in the integrity of elections, as citizens may begin to doubt whether the system adequately protects democratic standards.
For a country that has invested decades rebuilding democratic institutions, such shifts should not be treated lightly. Electoral laws should strengthen public trust rather than quietly narrow the avenues through which citizens can demand accountability. The stakes extend beyond legal technicalities into the foundation of democratic legitimacy.
A Moment for National Reflection
Nigeria’s democracy remains a work in progress, and the laws governing elections should reinforce transparency and accountability. When citizens begin to feel that the rules of the political game are changing in ways that protect those in power, trust in democratic institutions inevitably declines. That decline in trust can become difficult to reverse.
The question before Nigerians is therefore not merely legal but civic and moral. Do we want a system where the law continues to guard democratic standards, or one where subtle legal changes gradually insulate power from scrutiny? The answer will shape how future generations experience Nigerian democracy.
History shows that democracies rarely collapse suddenly. More often, they erode gradually through small amendments, quiet deletions, and subtle adjustments that appear minor at first glance. Nigeria deserves laws that strengthen democracy, not ones that quietly weaken its safeguards.
Idris, a Policy and Good Governance Activist, writes from Abuja
