When a politician stands on a podium and boasts of delivering a state for a presidential candidate while simultaneously securing the governorship for an opposition party, it is not merely a statement of political prowess, it is an indictment of our electoral system.
The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, has never been one to mince words. His recent reiteration that he delivered Rivers State for President Bola Tinubu (APC) and the governorship for the PDP in the 2023 general elections is a stark reminder of the transactional nature of Nigerian politics. Beneath the bravado lies a troubling question that strikes at the heart of our democracy, If one man can decide the fate of millions of votes, do the people truly have a voice?
In a functional democracy, elections are the superpower of the citizen. The ballot is the equalizer, the one day where the mechanic, the market woman, and the billionaire have the exact same influence on the nation’s future.
However, the language of felivering states implies that voters are not independent agents but mere commodities to be packaged and handed over to the highest bidder or the favored ally. It suggests that the sophisticated technology of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the promises of the IReV portal are secondary to the whims of political strongmen.
If a governor can sit in a room and decide to split the ballot giving the presidency to Party A and the governorship to Party B and the results align perfectly with that decision, we must ask: Are elections in Nigeria a reflection of the people’s will, or are they simply a validation of a godfather’s arrangement?
This narrative is dangerous because it breeds apathy. Why should a young professional in Port Harcourt or a farmer in Ahoada stand in the sun for hours to vote if the outcome has already been delivered? The authenticity of an election relies on uncertainty. In a free fair contest, no one not even the incumbent should be able to guarantee a result with absolute certainty. When politicians speak with the confidence of predetermined outcomes, they are essentially telling the electorate that the process is a charade. This erodes the legitimacy of the government that emerges. A leader delivered by a godfather will always be loyal to the godfather; a leader elected by the people will be loyal to the people.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) finds itself in the crosshairs of this crisis. Wike’s comments are an indirect challenge to the Commission’s integrity. If the process is transparent and technology-driven, how can one individual wield such disproportionate control over the results?
INEC must understand that silence is not golden in this era. The Commission needs to demonstrate that its systems are immune to the delivery tactics of the political elite. Trust in the electoral umpire is currently at a nadir, and every uncontested claim of rigging or manipulation digs the hole deeper.
As we look toward the off-cycle governorship elections in Ekiti and Osun later this year, the stakes could not be higher. These elections will serve as a litmus test for the 2027 general elections.
Nigerians are watching. Will Ekiti and Osun be delivered by strongmen, or will they be decided by the people? INEC has a window of opportunity to redeem its image. It must ensure that the will of the people in these states is reflected not just in the voting but in the collation and announcement of results. Security agencies must prove they are protectors of the ballot, not enforcers of a politician’s will.
Democracy is fragile. It dies not always with a military coup, but when the people realize their superpower; the vote, has been rendered impotent by the caprices of the political elite. We cannot allow the delivery culture to become the standard of our democracy. The people must deliver their leaders, not the other way around.