Time to Address the Menace of Vote Buying

Politicians  who mostly picked their party tickets by buying the delegates without any consequence now plot vote-buying, which will further compromise the credibility, legitimacy and integrity of the 2023 elections, writes Louis Achi

The electoral malfeasance of buying votes has become a disturbing feature of elections in Nigeria. Clearly, it bodes ill for the nation’s fledgling democracy. This dark phenomenon was starkly observed in the recent off-season Ekiti State governorship election. Worse, given its geometric progression, it could severely threaten the 2023 general election

According to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), 749,065 Personal Voter Cards (PVCs) were issued for the Ekiti State election, out of which 360,753 were used by voters. Cash projection and provision to buy the majority of these registered voters, at either N5000 or N10,000 per vote, would translate to billions of naira. This is not democracy by any metrics.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the National Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) reportedly made a handful of arrests during the Ekiti State election. But this hardly deters this infamy while it has led to the apt description of Nigeria’s electoral politics as “cash-and-carry democracy”.

From INEC records, 16 political parties participated in the Ekiti election. Reports from election observers and the media alleged that some voters received between N5,000 and N10,000 each, under a “See-and-Pay” ruse, where a thumb-printed ballot was displayed to a party agent who stood around a polling booth.

In the vote buying scenario, a person has to show evidence that he or she has voted for the party in order to receive payment for the vote. Not unlike a typical market place, the politicians, political parties, and party agents are the vote buyers while prospective voters are the sellers.

The vote to be cast is of course the commodity on sale while the medium of exchange could be monetary and non-monetary items. The market force that determines the value or price of a vote is the level of desperation of politicians to win in a particular locality. Though money and other valuables can be used to consummate vote buying, politicians have evolved two main approaches to buying votes for Election Day.

The first is the cash-for-vote approach, which involves giving or promising the prospective voter some agreed amount of money well before the individual votes at the polling station. The payment is done before the actual voting, and could be within the vicinity of the polling station or farther away.

The “settlement” is made secretly or in the open. Most times the vote buyers demand evidence of ownership of a voter’s card and assurance that the voter will vote for their party before offering the money. In this approach, trust is key to the contract. It is also known as the pre-paid method of vote buying. Much of these played out in Ekiti.

While the bigger parties allegedly paid out these humungous sums, a handful of smaller parties reportedly offered between N1,000 and N2,000 per vote. Confirming these dodgy capers, the Centre for Democracy and Development, a non-profit body, revealed that its field observers documented 41 bribery cases in six local government areas of the State. The candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) Mr. Segun Oni, who feels undone by the vote-buying spree, has vowed to challenge the outcome of the poll.

The Socio-Economic and Peoples Right (SERAP), in its push for action, gave INEC a seven-day ultimatum to identify and prosecute the perpetrators. On its part, the British High Commission in Nigeria validly stressed that, “buying and selling of votes has no place in a democracy.”

Worse, the Ekiti vote buying horror suggested the electoral process was compromised surprisingly by some officials of INEC and security personnel. But this is unproven. Particularly worrisome is the blatant nature vote buying has assumed in recent times and the grave danger it poses to democracy.

The most worrying aspect of vote buying is how it will shape the 2023 general election. It is very clear that Nigerians are at the end of their tethers and any undue disruptions may provoke unforeseeable reactions. At a point in the national journey when unprecedented division pervades the nation any perception of being short-changed might represent the final push.

The emerging consensus is that INEC and the EFCC should develop a strategic collaborative framework for effective monitoring of political parties’ campaign funds in order to effectively curb electoral fraud, including vote buying.

More, to enhance the secrecy of the ballot, the INEC need to construct a collapsible voting cubicle that will make it difficult for party agents to see a voter thumbprint on the ballot paper. Also actions that reveal the vote cast by voters should be criminalised. Here the Civil Society groups must enter the fray and advocate that police and other law enforcement agencies must arrest, investigate and diligently prosecute those involved in the act of vote trading.

The place of technology in modern processes cannot be overemphasized. Many now rightly believe that INEC if had installed surveillance cameras at the polling units, they would have recorded all the crookery that transpired during the exercise. It would also increase public awareness of the danger in breaching the law.

The media and civil society organisations would need to ramp up voter education and enlightenment campaigns on the negative implications of vote trading – especially on how it increases the costs of elections, promotes political corruption and undermines good governance. This will significantly complement INEC’s efforts.

In all, electoral credibility, legitimacy and integrity are core elements that could vitiate or validate a democracy.