In Nigeria, elections carry hidden costs. One of the most troubling is litigation. The proposed N135.22 billion allocation in the 2026 budget for post-election litigation ahead of the 2027 polls underscores this reality. Disturbingly, this figure represents a staggering jump from the N3.08 billion spent on litigation and legal defence after the 2023 elections.
This is sheer waste, especially when INEC is already set to receive a statutory transfer of N1.01 trillion in the 2026 fiscal proposal.
INEC itself had requested N873.78 billion to conduct the 2027 general elections and N171 billion for its 2026 operations. Both figures dwarf the N313.4 billion spent on the 2023 elections.
Even more striking, the litigation provision, euphemistically tagged “Electoral Adjudication and Post-Election Provision,” accounts for about 3.65 per cent of the N3.70 trillion Consolidated Revenue Fund charges.
Curiously, this provision is tucked under Service-Wide Votes, a controversial pool of contingency funds used by the Federal Government for obligations not tied to any specific ministry, department, or agency. In effect, it is the government’s ATM card.
Service-Wide Votes have long been a conduit for questionable spending. It was reportedly used to finance the purchase of a new presidential jet in 2024 for about $100 million.
The sheer scale of funds earmarked for election litigation curiously implies that the government is bracing for a flawed process, one that will neither be free, fair, nor transparent. It is, in effect, an indictment of both INEC and the government itself.
A truly credible election, anchored on real-time electronic transmission of results, would significantly reduce disputes and render much of this litigation unnecessary.
Serious questions arise. How was this enormous litigation budget determined? Who stands to benefit? Is it strictly for INEC, or will political office-holders dip into it? It is safe to assume that an army of lawyers is already assembled to access this “largesse.”
The Federal Government must provide clear answers. Election litigation should not be funded with public money. It ought to be a private matter.
Sadly, Nigeria has built an industry around election litigation. Except for the 2015 elections, every presidential contest has ended up in court, leaving many in the judicial system laughing all the way to the bank.
In the aftermath of the deeply flawed 2007 elections, the late Supreme Court Justice Kayode Eso famously described some members of the bench as “billionaire judges,” lamenting how they had polluted the temple of justice by endorsing electoral fraud.
That concern remains valid. According to the ICPC, lawyers paid an estimated N9.45 billion in bribes to judges between 2018 and 2020.
It is both troubling and unacceptable that a separate national provision for election litigation now exists, whereas it did not in previous election cycles. INEC already maintains legal departments across all 36 states and the FCT to handle disputes. Litigation costs should therefore be internal to the commission.
Instead, these expenses have been externalised, shifted to the Federal Government in a manner that invites abuse. But then, in Nigeria, anything goes.
The President wields excessive influence, including the appointment of the INEC Chairman. This arrangement inevitably raises questions about the commission’s independence.
Weak institutions remain the core problem. INEC, the judiciary, and the legislature continue to operate below the standard required for a functioning democracy. That is why political impunity persists.
It is hardly surprising, then, that former Senate President Ahmad Lawan could return to the Senate after losing the All Progressives Congress presidential primaries in 2022.
This is not how a genuine democracy works.
Nigeria must urgently strengthen its institutions. The enormous sums earmarked for election litigation would be far better invested in structural reforms that enhance transparency, accountability, and credibility.
There is also a need to rethink how election disputes are handled. In Kenya, for instance, litigation arising from the 2022 presidential election was concluded within weeks.
Nigeria should adopt a similar model. Presidential election petitions should originate and terminate at the Supreme Court, while governorship disputes should end at the Court of Appeal. The system must eliminate endless technicalities that delay justice.
Above all, no government official should have access to public funds for election litigation. The government’s role is not to finance disputes but to prevent them by ensuring elections are free, fair, and credible.
That is the only path to restoring public trust in Nigeria’s electoral process.
