Vote-buying and Credibility of Ekiti Governorship Election

As the technology of the Independent National Electoral Commission makes the traditional methods of rigging elections ineffective, politicians have resorted to vote-buying as witnessed massively in the just-concluded governorship election in Ekiti State, Gboyega Akinsanmi writes

With the 2023 general election drawing closer, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is preoccupied with how to conduct a credible general election. No time did this question become an issue of national debate than during the last governorship election in Ekiti State due to the prevalence of vote buying or selling that charaterised the process and of course, tainted the credibility of the election.

Nearly all observers reported that the cases of bribery of voters and inducement were prevalent in virtually all the 16 local government areas (LGAs) in the state contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022. According to some reports, the electorate willingly placed monetary values on their votes without weighing the consequences of their decisions.

In its reports, for instance, observers under Yiaga Africa Watching The Vote (WTV) documented how the party agents of All Progressives Congress (APC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Social Democratic Party (SDP) were doling out cash – ranging from N5,000 to N10,000 – in exchange for the votes of the willing sellers.

In Ijero LGA, specifically, Yiaga Africa observed APC agents sharing N7,000 per voter. In Ado-Ekiti, as shown in its report, Yiaga Africa also observed the party agents of the ruling party sharing N5,000 to every electorate, who provided evidence that  they voted for the APC in their polling centres.

Also, in its report, the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD) documented 41 cases of vote buying and selling in six LGAs. The LGAs comprise Ado Ekiti, Ijero, Ikole, Irepodun-Ifelodun, Ise-Orun and Moba. In its own case, the Transition Monitoring Group (TMG) attested to how public funds were used to woo voters before and during the governorship election.

Likewise, Chairman of CDD Election Analysis Centre, Prof. Adele Jinadu documented the patterns of vote buying across 16 LGAs that comprise the state. In the first instance, as Jinadu claimed, vote-buying took the patterns of cash collection in brown envelopes to disguise the content to avoid arrest by the anti-corruption agencies. In another case, according to him, young voters openly displayed the money for the votes they willingly auctioned.

 Whether in Anambra, Ekiti, Edo, Kogi, Ondo or any state in the federation, political actors, capitalising on massive poverty in the country, which is mainly due to their maladministration, now offer voters rewards in exchange for their votes since the traditional methods of rigging elections have been rendered ineffective by INEC’s improved technology.  During the Ekiti State governorship election, voters auctioned their votes to the highest bidder, a trend, which TMG’s Chairman, Mr. Auwal Rafsanjani, said had now replaced snatching of ballot boxes.

All these reports indeed contradicted what Ekiti State Governor-elect, Mr. Biodun Oyebanji told President Muhammadu Buhari the day after he was declared winner. But what could have bred the unholy exchange of votes for monetary rewards in the polity? What made voters to have resolved to auction their suffrage?

Apparently, vote  buying is not a one-way transaction involving voters alone. But candidates and their political parties are culpable actors in the black market of vote auctioning or trading. What are the triggers that compelled them to compromise the promise by offering rewards for the votes of willing sellers? What does this trend mean for the future of democracy in the federation? How can the authorities nip in the bud?

Experts sharply differ on what constitutes the root causes of vote buying or selling not just in Ekiti State, but also in other states. For some, the phenomenon is rooted in the perilous living conditions of the people, which they argued, induced them to sell their suffrage to the highest bidders in order to solve their immediate challenges.

Jinadu placed this argument in the context of the ongoing strike in the public universities. For him, the strike influenced some of the electorate who sold their votes to view the election as an opportunity to solve their economic challenges. This might particularly be true in the case of the Ekiti State considering its poverty index.

In terms of poverty headcount rate, Ekiti has more poor people than other states in the South-west. Besides, it is classified as one of the averagely poor states in the federation. As shown in the Nigeria Poverty Assessment 2022, a publication of the World Bank, 28 per cent of its population are captives of extreme poverty. In every 100 persons, according to the assessment report, at least 28 are extremely poor.

 This is a sharp contrast to other states in the geo-political zone. In Lagos, for instance, poverty headcount rate is about 4.5 per cent, the lowest not just in the South-west, but also in the federation. In Osun, it is about 8.5 per cent of its population; 9.3 per cent in Ogun; 9.8 per cent in Oyo and 12.5 per cent in Ondo.

 Does these poverty rates suggest that vote-buying or selling is less prevalent in other states in the South-west? In 2018, as shown in TMG’s reports, political actors were scrambling to compromise the suffrage of the Osun people during its governorship poll. The party that paid the highest price eventually won the election. In 2019, also, vote-buying or selling was a recurring decimal during the general election. For others, the gnawing trend of vote-buying or selling attests to the inordinate quest by the political actors and parties to gain control of political power at all costs. Hence, it spurred most dominant political actors and parties to financially induce the electorate to support their aspiration or vote materially influence their electoral behaviour before and during the elections.

 While most observers attested to how inordinate quests for political power and escalating poverty indicators often trigger vote buying in Nigeria, they believe most voters see every election as the opportunity to get their own dividends of democracy, which they largely justify in the poor performance of their elected representatives

 Such voters, as observers put it, lament  the failure of their elected representatives to meet their aspiration. Their claims are evident in the catalogue of decrepit public schools, deplorable roads, poor healthcare system, acute infrastructure deficit and increasing unemployment rates, which they argue, have not gained deserved policy priority. Hence, according to them, it is during the election session that they can claim what their elected representatives have denied them.

With vote buying gradually becoming a norm, analysts have raised the alarm over its grave consequences for the future election. This phenomenon, according to Rafsanjani, is a symptom of a deeper problem of integrity crisis for the INEC, and will always compromise the electoral processes if appropriate measures are not adopted to reverse the trend.

 But the former INEC Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega explained its consequences for the anti-graft fight and economic development. For him, the trend  exacerbates corrupt practices and economic crimes that permeate the public sector with political candidates diverting public funds to sponsor their campaign activities.

More broadly, the National Chairman, Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC), Alhaji Yabagi Sani explained its consequences from three perspectives. First, he argued, that the voters, who sold their ballots for a mess of electoral porridge, had already mortgaged their future for the next four years. Second, he said, what happened in Ekiti clearly showed that the INEC lacked the capacity “to conduct credible elections.” Third, he added that the trend further compounded the public perception crisis for the INEC.

Most analysts agreed that anti-corruption agencies “have core roles to play in nipping vote buying in the bud.” However, Rafsanjani observed, anti-graft agencies “alone cannot address the root causes of voter bribery and inducement in the federation.” He justified this claim on the vicious cycle of extreme poverty in which at least 100 million people were trapped. Given these excruciating economic conditions, Rafsanjani argued that using a legal approach alone may not yield desired outcomes because it is difficult for the voters, who cannot meet their basic needs, to reject inducement from political actors and parties. While the roles of anti-graft agencies cannot be downplayed, he observed, pre-election engagement is more crucial in reversing the trend of vote buying nationwide.

Like Rafsanjani, other analysts canvassed voter education and wider civil education to address the roots of voter bribery. Since vote buying is an approach that anti-people political actors are using to clinch political power to serve their selfish interests, educating voters properly before an election is key to discouraging it.

As a strategy, they suggested that voter education programmes should not just be deepened across all strata of the federation, but also designed to expose how vote-trading is aiding corrupt practices and how candidates are diverting public funds for the purpose of gaining political power at the expense of the people. Beyond voter education, civil society organisations believed strengthening public institutions “is a viable approach to decimating the roots of vote buying or selling.” In response to this challenge, the CSOs argued, relevant public institutions should be empowered to arrest voters for electoral crimes; prosecute them and culpable parties should be deregistered.