“Democracy is not only about voting. It is also about ensuring that those who appear on the ballot are lawfully eligible to do so. Removing the ability to challenge qualification after an election may have unintended consequences: It weakens deterrence against falsification of credentials”
(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 core: those who seek public office must meet the standards set by law, and the law must provide citizens with the means to hold them accountable.
That principle now appears to be under quiet but serious threat.
In the recently amended Electoral Act 2022, a subtle but consequential change has altered the legal landscape governing election disputes in Nigeria. The amendment removed a critical provision that previously allowed citizens to challenge an election on the ground that the person declared winner was not qualified to contest in the first place.
At first glance, the change may appear technical , one of those legislative adjustments buried within complex legal drafting. But its implications are profound.
What the Law Used to Say
Under Section 134(1)(a) of the Electoral Act 2022, an election could be questioned if:
“A person whose election is questioned was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election.”
This provision was not merely procedural. It was a democratic safeguard. It meant that if a candidate falsified credentials, forged certificates, or otherwise failed to meet constitutional requirements, citizens could challenge that election before an election tribunal.
In essence, it ensured that winning an election did not automatically erase questions about legitimacy.
What the Law Now Provides
In the amended legislation, the grounds for questioning an election now contained in Section 138 have been narrowed significantly. Election petitions can now primarily rely on:
corrupt practices or non-compliance with the Electoral Act, or the claim that the declared winner did not receive the majority of lawful votes.
What has disappeared from the law is the explicit ground that allowed citizens to challenge the election of a candidate who was not qualified to run.
That omission raises a troubling question: what happens when a candidate who should never have been eligible wins an election?
The Constitution Still Requires Qualifications
Nigeria’s Constitution still maintains clear eligibility requirements for public office. For instance, 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 School Certificate level or its equivalent.
Similar requirements exist for governors and legislators.
However, laws are only as effective as the mechanisms available to enforce them. When the ability to challenge eligibility after an election is removed, the constitutional requirement risks becoming more symbolic than enforceable.
A Slippery Slope Toward State Capture
This development raises deeper governance concerns that extend beyond electoral law.
Political scientists describe state capture as a situation where powerful political or economic actors manipulate the laws, policies, and institutions of a state to serve their own 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 reduce accountability.
When legal frameworks are quietly altered in ways that shield political actors from scrutiny, citizens must ask whether the system is still functioning primarily in their interest.
Why Nigerians Should Care
Democracy is not only about voting. It is also about ensuring that those who appear on the ballot are lawfully eligible to do so.
Removing the ability to challenge qualification after an election may have unintended consequences:
It weakens deterrence against falsification of credentials.
It reduces the power of election tribunals as instruments of accountability.
It risks eroding public confidence in the integrity of electoral processes.
For a country that has invested decades rebuilding democratic institutions, such shifts should not be treated lightly.
A Moment for National Reflection
Nigeria’s democracy is still evolving. Laws governing elections must strengthen transparency and accountability not weaken them.
If Nigerians begin to feel that the rules of the game are quietly changing in ways that protect political actors rather than protect the electorate, public trust in democratic institutions will inevitably decline.
The question therefore is not merely legal; it is civic and moral.
Do we want a system where the law remains a guardian of democratic standards, or one where legal changes slowly insulate power from scrutiny?
Nigerians must engage this question thoughtfully and courageously. Silence in moments like this can allow precedents to settle quietly into the legal landscape.
Democracy does not collapse overnight. More often, it erodes gradually through small amendments, subtle deletions, and quiet adjustments that seem minor until their consequences become impossible to ignore.
Nigeria deserves laws that strengthen democracy, not weaken it.
And every citizen has a stake in ensuring that the rules of governance remain firmly anchored in accountability, integrity, and the public interest.
Idris Muhammed Abdullahi
Abuja
Policy and Good Governance Activist
The 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended) disqualifies anyone who has presented a forged certificate to INEC from elective offices.
Section 137(1)(j) for President: a person shall not be qualified if “he has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission.”
Exact same wording appears in: S.66(1)(i) – National Assembly, S.107(1)(i) – State House of Assembly, S.182(1)(j) – Governor
This is a constitutional qualification rule (pre-election), independent of Electoral Act petition grounds. Therefore, certificate forgery can still be challenged using the constitution even if it is not duplicated in the electoral act.
