Outrage over £135bn election dispute budget…

A firestorm of criticism has followed the federal government’s decision to earmark P135.22 billion for post-election litigation ahead of the 2027 general elections, with ActionAid Nigeria warning that the move reflects a dangerous failure of electoral governance and a misplaced national priority.

In a strongly worded statement released Tuesday, the civil society organization described the allocation as not only excessive but deeply alarming, arguing that it signals an expectation of widespread electoral disputes rather than a commitment to credible and transparent elections.

The group said the provision amounts to a tacit admission that Nigeria’s electoral system has been structured to produce conflicts that will inevitably end up in courtrooms. He warned that such an approach undermines democratic integrity and public trust in the electoral process.

“This is not just a budgetary concern; it is a governance crisis,” the organization said, noting that the size of the allocation is unprecedented and unjustifiable when compared to historical spending patterns.

According to available data from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the costs of litigation and judicial proceedings amounted to approximately ₦2.104 billion in 2022 and ₦3.087 billion in 2023 after the last general elections. The jump to ₦135 billion, ActionAid Nigeria argued, raises fundamental questions about transparency, planning and accountability.

The organization warned that normalizing such large spending on post-election disputes risks entrenching a cycle in which flawed elections are tolerated, only to be contested at huge public expense. He added that the burden of this approach would extend beyond public finances, potentially overwhelming the justice system, delaying justice in other cases and increasing the cost of political participation.

ActionAid Nigeria country director Andrew Mamedu said the development reflected a worrying shift towards managing electoral crises rather than preventing them.

He highlighted the persistent weaknesses in Nigeria’s electoral legal framework, particularly the gaps in the Electoral Act 2022, which evidently emerged during the 2023 elections. Chief among these, he noted, is the lack of certainty over the electronic transmission of results, a reform widely supported by civil society groups but not fully addressed in subsequent legislative reviews.

According to him, making real-time electronic transmission mandatory would significantly reduce human interference, limit manipulation during the debate and restore public confidence in the election results.

“Failure to fill these gaps has consequences,” Mamedu said. “What we are seeing now is the cost of ignoring practical, evidence-based reforms that could have prevented the litigation in the first place.”

Beyond its electoral implications, ActionAid Nigeria described the ₦135 billion allocation as a stark misalignment of national priorities, especially in the face of growing socioeconomic challenges across the country. With millions of Nigerians struggling with inadequate healthcare, insecurity and underfunded education systems, the organization said the decision raises serious concerns about the government’s response to citizens’ needs.

ActionAid Nigeria has warned that continuing down this path risks deepening public disillusionment and eroding trust in democratic institutions.

The group therefore called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to withhold consent to the budget in its current form and initiate a comprehensive review of the allocation. While he acknowledged that some level of funding for electoral disputes is necessary in any democracy, he insisted that the proposed amount is grossly disproportionate.

He urged the government to redirect excess funds towards strengthening electoral systems before elections, rather than preparing to deal with disputes afterwards. He also called for greater investment in critical sectors such as healthcare and education, which have a direct impact on the well-being of citizens.

“The true test of election integrity is not how many cases are won in court,” the organization noted, “but how few disputes arise in the first place.”

Related