The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) stands at the very heart of Nigeria’s enduring system of corruption. It is not merely a referee that occasionally misses a foul; it has become the primary enabler of public sector corruption. By failing to regulate political finance and ensuring that illicit funds, largely looted from the public treasury, stay out of the electoral process, INEC provides the fertile soil in which prebendalism grows.
Prebendalism denotes the prominence attached to the ‘struggle to control and exploit the offices of the state’ — Richard A. Joseph
|
|
I first encountered the word “prebendalism” through the late Professor Yusuf Dankofa. It is a term that was defined for Nigeria and which perfectly captures the national malaise – that elective/public offices are not positions of service but “prebends,” or spoils (like those of war), to be captured and distributed among a network of ethnic, religious, and political clients. But to understand why this system remains so stubbornly resilient in the country till date, we must stop looking only at politicians and start looking at gatekeepers also.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) stands at the very heart of Nigeria’s enduring system of corruption. It is not merely a referee that occasionally misses a foul; it has become the primary enabler of public sector corruption. By failing to regulate political finance and ensuring that illicit funds, largely looted from the public treasury, stay out of the electoral process, INEC provides the fertile soil in which prebendalism grows.
|
|
|
|---|
The financial cost of this regulatory failure is astronomical. In 2018, I wrote an article in which I argued that Nigeria could save ₦240 billion by reforming its elections and embracing basic efficiency. At that time, ₦240 billion was the total budget of INEC, required to conduct national elections. Fast forward to 2026, and the commission’s request has ballooned to a mind-boggling ₦873 billion.
This 260 per cent increase is a symptom of a deeper rot. There is no evidence that INEC has factored in efficiency or leveraged technology to bring its costs down. Instead, it appears to be simply adjusting for inflation to execute the same manual, loophole-ridden procedures it has deployed for decades. The refusal to modernise is a calculated strategy to keep election costs high and processes opaque, while the system ensures that only candidates backed by wealthy godfathers and financiers can compete, thereby effectively rolling out the red carpet for illicit wealth to enter the political arena.
Public sector corruption in Nigeria exists in a symbiotic cycle with our elections. To win an election overseen by an inefficient INEC, a candidate needs a war chest that defies all legal limits. Where does this money come from? It is siphoned from the budgets of ministries, departments, and agencies of government, and that puts so pressure on the system.
…the Electoral Integrity Project consistently ranks campaign finance transparency as one of the lowest indicators of electoral integrity in Nigeria. By failing to implement these global best practices, INEC effectively leaves the back door open for looted public funds to return to the system as campaign contributions. When the referee refuses to check the source of the players’ funding, the game is rigged before the first whistle.
Beyond the dozens of cases currently in court, the Nigerian political landscape is littered with open secrets in which the sudden disappearance of public funds coincides perfectly with election cycles. A glaring example is the recurring phenomenon of security votes – opaque funds allocated to state governors that require no auditing. During election years, these allocations often witness suspicious spikes. In several South-South and North-Central states, former governors have been accused by civil society groups of emptying state accounts to fund the structure and logistics for their successors, yet the cases instituted regarding these often stall at the investigation stage, once political alignments shift.
There is also the curious case of the social investment programmes and various empowerment schemes that tend to go into overdrive months before a general election. Critics have frequently pointed to the distribution of massive sums of cash, often under the guise of poverty alleviation, as a legalised form of vote-buying using the national treasury. While the EFCC has occasionally questioned the timing and procurement processes of these multi-billion naira disbursements, formal prosecutions for electoral fraud in these instances remain rare.
Contract inflation remains a primary source of election funding. It is widely understood within the public sector that large-scale infrastructure projects approved in the third year of a four-year term often carry a political premium. The excess is allegedly kicked back by contractors to party leaders to finance upcoming campaigns. Despite the sheer volume of funds moved through this channel, the complexity of procurement laws and the involvement of high-ranking officials make these the most effective, yet least prosecuted, way that public sector corruption fuels the electoral machine.
International standards, such as those outlined in the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and the African Union Convention, are designed to break this cycle. They call for real-time digital reporting of party finances, genuine independent oversight, and the disclosure of beneficial owners – the real people pulling the strings behind electoral financing. Yet, the Electoral Integrity Project consistently ranks campaign finance transparency as one of the lowest indicators of electoral integrity in Nigeria. By failing to implement these global best practices, INEC effectively leaves the back door open for looted public funds to return to the system as campaign contributions. When the referee refuses to check the source of the players’ funding, the game is rigged before the first whistle.
Without intense, sustained pressure on INEC to implement real-time digital reporting and strict enforcement of spending limits, the electoral process will remain a mere money-laundering machine for the elite. We must recognise that even the most fair election is a failure if it serves as a gateway for state capture. Until we secure political finance transparency, we may win the battle for the ballot, but we will continue to lose the war for good governance.
On paper, the Electoral Act 2022 is a robust framework for accountability. It contains specific sections designed to curb the influence of dark money. Section 86 mandates that parties should submit annual audited statements of assets and liabilities, which INEC must publish. Section 88 sets strict expenditure limits — ₦5 billion for presidential candidates — while Section 121 explicitly criminalises bribery. As I have mentioned, INEC has not published the audit report of the ₦240 billion it received in the last election nor any election year, thereby violating several rules. So, how can a regulator that is violating the law enforce the laws of accountability on political parties? When was the last time a major political party published its audited reports through the same INEC or faced millions in fine for exceeding contribution limits? When has INEC truly examined the records to ensure a candidate didn’t spend ten times the legal limit?
When INEC fails to enforce Section 89 (audited returns of election expenses) or Section 87 of the Electoral Act (the power to limit contributions), it isn’t just being “lax.” It is ensuring that the only people who can compete are those with access to the public till.
This is how prebendalism is codified. If it costs nearly a trillion naira to run an election and billions more to win a seat, the winner must treat the public treasury as a personal “prebend” to pay back his/her investors. INEC’s refusal to embrace digital transparency and strict financial regulation is the primary reason why public sector corruption remains the most profitable industry in Nigeria. Until the commission moves from being a passive observer to an active regulator of political money, our democracy will remain a transaction between the looters and the gatekeepers.
Ultimately, the quest for clean elections is a hollow pursuit if the funds that fuel these polls are stolen from the same citizens casting their ballots. Civil society and the media must shift the spotlight from the drama of polling units and electronic transmission to the ledgers of political finance. It is no longer enough to observe the vote; we must audit the war chest. Without intense, sustained pressure on INEC to implement real-time digital reporting and strict enforcement of spending limits, the electoral process will remain a mere money-laundering machine for the elite. We must recognise that even the most fair election is a failure if it serves as a gateway for state capture. Until we secure political finance transparency, we may win the battle for the ballot, but we will continue to lose the war for good governance.
Umar Yakubu is the Executive Director of Center for Fiscal Transparency and Public Integrity.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
