Austin Aigbe
Nigeria’s democratic journey has been long, complex, and uneven. Since the return to civilian rule in 1999, elections have been held regularly, power has changed hands between parties, and democratic institutions have taken root.
However, more than two decades later, democratic consolidation remains elusive. One recurring factor in this slow progress is the persistent delay in passing and implementing comprehensive electoral reforms, particularly amendments to the Electoral Act.
These delays have had far-reaching consequences, weakening public trust, entrenching elite dominance, and slowing the maturation of Nigeria’s democracy.
At the heart of democratic consolidation is the idea that elections are not just periodic events, but credible mechanisms through which citizens can choose leaders, hold them accountable, and influence public policy.
For elections to play this role, the rules governing them must be clear, timely, and consistently enforced. Nigeria’s electoral reform efforts should be proactive and inclusive, involving diverse stakeholders to foster a shared sense of responsibility.
When reforms are timely and participatory, they can restore faith and encourage active engagement from all sectors of society.
The delayed passage of the Electoral Bill illustrates this pattern. Reforms that could strengthen transparency, regulate political finance, improve the use of technology, and sanction electoral offences are frequently debated for years before being enacted—sometimes only after critical elections have already taken place.
Delayed reforms, tight timelines
When reforms arrive late, institutions such as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), political parties, the judiciary, and civil society struggle to adapt under tight timelines, increasing the risk of confusion, litigation, and mistrust. This delay directly undermines electoral integrity by allowing outdated practices to persist and reducing public confidence in the process.
One of the most damaging effects of delayed electoral reform is the erosion of public confidence. Nigerian voters have repeatedly witnessed elections conducted under outdated or ambiguous legal frameworks, followed by prolonged disputes and court battles.
When rules are changed too close to elections, citizens often perceive them as tools for elite manipulation rather than genuine improvements. This perception feeds voter apathy, reflected in declining turnout and growing disengagement, especially among young people.
Delays also reinforce a winner-takes-all political culture. In a system where executive power provides extensive access to state resources, political actors have strong incentives to resist reforms that could level the playing field.
Electoral Bills are therefore subjected to intense political negotiation, with provisions watered down, stalled, or selectively supported depending on elite interests.
Laws in public interest
This dynamic undermines the principle that electoral laws should serve the public interest rather than partisan advantage.
The impact on institutions is equally significant. INEC, which is constitutionally mandated to conduct elections, requires sufficient time, clarity, and resources to implement reforms effectively. Late passage of the Electoral Act constrains planning, training, procurement, and voter education.
Even well-intentioned reforms—such as the introduction of electoral technology—can become sources of controversy if they are not embedded early enough in law and practice. Instead of enhancing credibility, rushed implementation risks technical failures and legal disputes that further damage trust.
Political parties also suffer from delayed reform. Weak enforcement of rules on internal party democracy and campaign finance has allowed elite capture to persist. Candidate selection processes remain opaque, expensive, and exclusionary, sidelining women, youth, and reform-minded aspirants.
When reforms to party regulation are delayed, parties continue to operate with minimal accountability, contributing to pre-election litigation and internal crises that spill over into the wider electoral system.
Judiciary drawn in
The judiciary, meanwhile, is increasingly drawn into the centre of electoral politics. Ambiguous or outdated electoral laws invite litigation, prompting courts to fill gaps that should have been addressed legislatively and contributing to the judicialisation of elections, in which electoral outcomes are frequently decided in court rather than at the ballot box.
While the judiciary plays a vital role in dispute resolution, overreliance on litigation undermines electoral legitimacy. It places enormous pressure on judges, often exposing them to political attacks and public suspicion.
Beyond institutions, delayed electoral reform has broader implications for democratic consolidation. Consolidation requires predictability, where political actors internalise democratic rules and accept elections as the only legitimate path to power.
Persistent delays signal uncertainty and fragility, encouraging actors to hedge their bets through violence, vote buying, or legal manoeuvring. Over time, these practices become normalised, weakening democratic norms and making reform even harder.
Timely reforms can reinforce democratic norms, build trust, and accelerate consolidation, aligning with policymakers’ objectives for a resilient democracy.
It is important to note that the problem is not merely technical or bureaucratic. The delayed passage of the Electoral Bill reflects deeper political economy challenges. Electoral reforms often threaten established networks of power and patronage.
As a result, reform becomes a site of contestation rather than consensus. Without sustained pressure from citizens, civil society, the media, and development partners, reform momentum easily stalls once immediate electoral crises pass.
Cautious optimism
However, there are also reasons for cautious optimism. Recent reform efforts have shown that progress is possible when broad coalitions emerge in support of change. Civil society advocacy, judicial pronouncements, media scrutiny, and international engagement have all played a role in advancing electoral reform.
The debate around electronic transmission of results, electoral offences, and early voting has entered mainstream public discourse, raising expectations for higher standards.
To avoid repeating the cycle of delayed reform and delayed consolidation, Nigeria must adopt a more forward-looking approach to electoral lawmaking. Timely reforms will inspire confidence in Nigeria’s democratic future, encouraging policymakers to see their role as pivotal in shaping a resilient democracy.
Electoral reforms should be concluded well ahead of election cycles, allowing institutions and citizens to internalise new rules. The National Assembly has a critical role to play in treating electoral reform as a matter of national interest rather than partisan calculation. Transparency in legislative processes and meaningful public consultation can help rebuild trust.
Equally important is strengthening enforcement. Passing an Electoral Bill is only the first step. Without effective implementation, sanctions, and institutional independence, even the best laws will fail to deliver democratic dividends.
Establishing mechanisms such as an Electoral Offences Commission, strengthening oversight of campaign finance, and protecting INEC’s autonomy are essential to translating reform into credible practice. These measures will reassure stakeholders that reforms are not just legislative but are actively upheld and enforced, thereby enhancing electoral integrity and public trust.
Democratic consolidation
Ultimately, the delayed passage of the Electoral Bill delays more than elections—it delays democratic consolidation itself. When reforms are postponed, citizens lose faith, institutions weaken, and anti-democratic practices harden.
Conversely, timely and credible reform can help reset expectations, empower voters, and move Nigeria closer to a democracy that is not only electoral but also accountable, inclusive, and resilient.
As Nigeria looks toward future elections, the lesson is clear: democracy cannot thrive on last-minute fixes. It requires political will, institutional foresight, and a shared commitment to rules that serve the many, not the few.
Only then can Nigeria move from managing elections to consolidating democracy. The National Assembly, particularly the Nigerian Senate, is therefore urged to pass the Electoral Bill and transmit it without further delay for the President’s assent, thereby strengthening, making credible, and consolidating Nigeria’s democracy ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Austin Aigbe, a Development and Electoral Specialist, writes from Abuja
