Premium News
The Federal Capital Territory Area Council elections have come and gone, yet the smoke has refused to clear. What should have been a routine democratic exercise instead raised troubling questions about credibility, neutrality, and the future of electoral integrity in Nigeria.
Voter turnout was dismal. Less than 10 percent of registered voters participated, a poor showing by any standard. Some have blamed the coincidence with the Lenten season and Ramadan fasting, but low turnout alone does not explain the deep dissatisfaction that followed the polls. Elections are not judged only by how many people vote, but by how the process is conducted.
The exercise was a critical test for the Independent National Electoral Commission under its new leadership. For Prof. Joash Amupitan, this was his first major outing as helmsman. While he inherited the contestants, he owned the process. Sadly, that process has been widely criticised by election observers and civil society groups as one of the worst conducted in recent memory.
At the heart of the controversy were concerns about the neutrality of the umpire. More disturbing, however, were the actions and utterances of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike. Ordinarily, he ought to have ensured peaceful, free, and fair elections but he chose intimidation and harassment. Two statements echoed loudly throughout the exercise. First, that he would not support anyone who was not aligned with President Tinubu. Second, that after voting, APC members should “leave the rest” for him to handle.
These statements were not casual remarks. They sent a clear signal of what to expect and cast a long shadow over the credibility of the outcome. To many observers, it appeared less about governance and more about an ego-driven attempt to impress the President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, by proving an ability to “deliver” election results at all costs.
Yet this was an off-cycle election. It is not a true measure of what Nigerians may decide in 2027. What it did measure, however, was public trust and acceptability. And on those scores, the process failed and Mr presidents acceptability rating is somewhat low. Reports of open intimidation and daylight manipulation were rife, all in the desperate bid to secure victory.
Abuja is often described as a miniature Nigeria, a melting pot of ethnicities, religions, and political opinions. Using the Abuja exercise, the message from the electorate appears clear: Nigerians are not convinced. Even if public praise has been offered to the minister, the real results, as reportedly presented behind closed doors, are said to have raised serious concern at the highest levels. The President knows that acceptance manufactured through force cannot replace genuine consent.
This election also put the amended Electoral Act under scrutiny, especially its failure to guarantee real-time transmission of results. That gap continues to breed suspicion and weakens confidence in the system.
Today, there may be smiles and applause. But they feel hollow. Political victories achieved through opaque means rarely endure. What is hidden today often unravels tomorrow. In the end, transparency has a way of reclaiming the centre stage, and when it does, those who mistook power for popularity may find that the applause has quietly turned into grief inherently turning into a double-edged sword.
