Outrage as N135bn Election Litigation Budget Sparks Governance Concerns

Michael Olugbode in Abuja

A storm of criticism has trailed the federal government’s decision to earmark N135.22 billion for post-election litigation ahead of the 2027 general elections, with ActionAid Nigeria warning that the move reflects a dangerous failure of electoral governance and a misplaced national priority.

In a strongly worded statement released on Tuesday, the civil society organisation described the allocation as not only excessive but deeply alarming, arguing that it signals an expectation of widespread electoral disputes rather than a commitment to credible, transparent elections.

The group said the provision amounts to a tacit admission that Nigeria’s electoral system is being structured to produce conflicts that will inevitably end up in courtrooms.

It warned that such an approach undermines democratic integrity and public confidence in the electoral process.

“This is not just a budgetary concern; it is a governance crisis,” the organisation stated, stressing that the scale of the allocation is unprecedented and unjustifiable when placed against historical spending patterns.

According to available data from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), litigation and prosecution costs stood at approximately N2.104 billion in 2022 and N3.087 billion in 2023 following the last general elections. The jump to N135 billion, ActionAid Nigeria argued, raises fundamental questions about transparency, planning, and accountability.

The organisation cautioned that normalising such huge spending on post-election disputes risks entrenching a cycle where flawed elections are tolerated, only to be contested at enormous public expense.

It added that the burden of this approach would extend beyond government finances, potentially overwhelming the judiciary, delaying justice in other cases, and increasing the cost of political participation.

Country Director of ActionAid Nigeria, Andrew Mamedu, said the development reflects a troubling shift toward managing electoral crises instead of preventing them.

He pointed to persistent weaknesses in Nigeria’s electoral legal framework, particularly gaps in the Electoral Act 2022, which became evident during the 2023 elections.

Chief among these, he noted, is the lack of certainty around electronic transmission of results—a reform widely advocated by civil society groups but not fully addressed in subsequent legislative reviews.

According to him, making real-time electronic transmission mandatory would significantly reduce human interference, limit manipulation during collation, and restore public trust in election outcomes.

“The failure to close these gaps has consequences,” Mamedu said. “What we are witnessing now is the cost of ignoring practical, evidence-based reforms that could have prevented disputes in the first place.”

Beyond its electoral implications, ActionAid Nigeria described the N135 billion allocation as a stark misalignment of national priorities, especially in the face of mounting socio-economic challenges across the country.

With millions of Nigerians struggling with inadequate healthcare, insecurity, and underfunded education systems, the organisation said the decision raises serious concerns about the government’s responsiveness to citizens’ needs.

ActionAid Nigeria warned that continuing on such a path, risks deepening public disillusionment and eroding trust in democratic institutions.

The group therefore called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to decline assent to the budget in its current form and initiate a comprehensive review of the allocation.

While acknowledging that some level of funding for election litigation is necessary in any democracy, it insisted that the proposed amount is grossly disproportionate.

It urged the government to redirect excess funds toward strengthening electoral systems before elections take place, rather than preparing to manage disputes afterward.

It also called for increased investment in critical sectors such as health and education, which directly impact citizens’ welfare.

“The real test of electoral integrity is not how many cases are won in court,” the organisation noted, “but how few disputes arise in the first place.”