Executive Director of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, has warned that the proposed amendment to Nigeria’s Electoral Act increasing campaign spending limits risks entrenching plutocracy, shrinking political space and excluding economically marginalised citizens from contesting public office.

Speaking during an interview with ARISE News on Friday, Itodo criticised the House of Representatives’ decision to double the campaign finance ceiling for presidential candidates to N10 billion and significantly raise limits for governorship, senatorial and House of Representatives elections.

“What the National Assembly has done is basically reinforcing the closure and shrinking of the political space and making public office the exclusive preserve of a few,” Itodo said.

“When you restrict the political space by pegging high campaign expenditure, what you are simply doing is eliminating a section of society from participating.”

He said the new limits promote unfair competition and deepen inequality in Nigeria’s political system.

“You shrink the space and then you promote unfair competition,” he said.

“Something is fundamentally wrong with the fact that public office and running for office is determined by the highest bidder and the highest spender.”

Although he acknowledged that N10 billion is a conservative estimate of what presidential campaigns actually cost in Nigeria, Itodo said the figure remains dangerously high.

“Realistically, you cannot execute a presidential election in Nigeria without spending more than N10 billion,” he said.

“It is a conservative figure, but it is also very high.”

Itodo warned that excessive campaign spending fuels corruption and distorts governance after elections.

“That is why when people get into office, their first preoccupation is how to recoup the money they have spent,” he said.

“That is how dirty money filters into our politics and shapes not just political outcomes, but governance after the election.”

He said elected officials often resort to patronage to repay political sponsors.

“You see people granting tax waivers to those who sponsored them or awarding contracts as a form of payback,” Itodo said.

“What you end up with is a politics of patronage.”

According to him, the cumulative effect is the erosion of democratic ideals.

“At the end of the day, what we get is a plutocracy and not a democracy,” he said.

“In a democracy, you are supposed to create a level playing field for all, but these campaign spending prescriptions tilt power against those who are economically marginalised.”

Itodo expressed concern about the lack of enforcement of campaign finance regulations, noting that violations have historically gone unpunished.

“If there is one thing we have failed to do, it is tracking campaign spending,” he said.

“Even when governing parties admit that they spent above the limits prescribed by law, no one is held accountable.”

He cited past elections as examples.

“During the 2015 and 2019 elections, the ruling party admitted spending above ?5 billion in the presidential campaign, and there were no consequences,” he said.

He argued that electoral laws have failed to reflect political realities.

“The way we structure and design our laws is not responding to political reality,” Itodo said.

“It does not demonstrate any commitment on the part of the political class to create a level playing field.”

Despite his criticism of campaign finance provisions, Itodo welcomed aspects of the electoral amendment passed by the House of Representatives, particularly the inclusion of compulsory electronic transmission of results.

“Something Nigerians should celebrate is that compulsory electronic transmission of results has now been introduced into the law,” he said.

However, he cautioned that legislative provisions alone are not sufficient.

“We should not go to sleep because it is contained in the law,” Itodo said.

“INEC needs to issue clear guidelines and ensure there are no ambiguities or shortcomings like we observed in the 2023 elections.”

He insisted that clarity is essential in implementation.

“Citizens need to know exactly what the process of electronic transmission of results is,” he said.

“The guidelines and manuals must be clear and not confusing.”

On the long-standing debate around the terms “transfer” and “transmission” of results, Itodo dismissed claims of ambiguity.

“I honestly do not see any ambiguity there,” he said.

“The concept of transfer is moving a document from point A to point B. It is the same thing with transmission.”

“Those who interpreted the law differently simply prevaricated because an opportunity was presented to them,” he added.

Commenting on INEC’s intervention in factional disputes within political parties, particularly the PDP, Itodo said the electoral body is being unfairly dragged into internal party conflicts.

“INEC is dragged into this mess because of the unhealthy state of our political parties,” he said.

“It is disappointing that a party that governed this country for 16 years cannot resolve its internal issues.”

He argued that INEC’s role should be strictly limited.

“INEC has no business trying to midwife or resolve conflicts in political parties,” Itodo said.

“Internal matters of a political party should be left to the party.”

While acknowledging the difficulty INEC faces when confronted with conflicting court orders and party correspondence, Itodo said the commission must ultimately defer to the courts.

“INEC is governed by rules and the law, and it has to enforce the law,” he said.

“When there are conflicting judgments from courts of coordinate jurisdiction, the commission has no choice but to wait for the superior courts.”

He added:

“Once the court determines which faction is the legitimate authority, INEC will have no option but to comply with that judgment.” (AriseNews TV)

Update news