Governor Chukwuma Soludo’s recent promise to reward campaign wards with millions of naira has caused an uproar. It has sparked controversy not just because it seems to break election law.
At a November 8 governorship campaign rally in Orumba South (Anambra State), the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) candidate made an announcement. He revealed cash incentives for any ward that delivers victory to his party.
Soludo vowed that every winning ward would get ₦1 million. The top three wards will earn ₦5m, ₦3m, and ₦2m respectively. The pledge echoed a similar scheme from a recent senatorial campaign, and he insisted it was simply motivation for supporters.
Yet the reaction was swift and fierce. The promise was widely decried as blatant vote-buying and a flagrant breach of Nigeria’s electoral laws. Opposition parties accused Soludo of “open inducement.” Civil-society groups warned the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to step in.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) in the South-East called it “undemocratic.” They vowed to petition INEC, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and other agencies.
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) called Soludo’s remarks a “public confession of vote-buying.” The Labour Party declared that the scheme weaponised poverty, accusing the governor of trying to “buy legitimacy with money.”
A former Peoples Democratic Party official issued a blunt warning. Once cash is involved, elections are no longer free and fair.
Experts note that Nigeria’s electoral code clearly prohibits such practices. Section 124 of the Electoral Act, for example, bans paying money to any other person for bribery at any election. This offence is punishable by fines or up to a year in jail. Yet enforcement is often weak in practice.
Civil-society voices argue that Soludo’s cash offer illustrates a chronic problem. Politics in Nigeria has too long been driven by patronage and inducements. It has not been driven by ideas.
Opposition leaders echo this concern. The APC’s Dr Ijeomah Arodiogbu warned that Soludo had already been using coercion. He described it as “forcing communities to commit their votes.” He noted that the ₦1m promise was only “one of many” such inducements.
ADC spokesman Bolaji Abdullahi urged INEC to act promptly, calling the pledge “a public confession of vote-buying”.
Labour Party’s Obiora Ifoh lamented that the offer “turns elections into transactions. Elections should be contests of ideas and competence.” He said APGA was trying to “buy legitimacy” since Soludo had “failed in governance”.
Former PDP organiser Mike Ahumibe agreed: “Elections should reflect the people’s choice. It should not reflect the deepest pockets,” he warned. “Once there is money involved, it is no longer free and fair”.
Civil-society groups were even harsher. Rights activist Debo Adeniran of the Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership called the plan “reprehensible.” He said it had “institutionalised vote-buying and monetised the electoral process” in Anambra. Adeniran reminded Nigerians that vote-buying is an electoral crime; the governor will face prosecution once his immunity lapses.
Similarly, veteran inter-party spokesman Yabagi Sani condemned the promise as a “dangerous precedent” of commercialising elections.
Sani pointedly noted that the funds Soludo was dangling are “the people’s money.” Soludo is using public resources to rig the outcome and erode trust in governance. He urged INEC, police and EFCC to investigate Soludo’s statement and demand an explanation in writing.
Election monitors also weighed in. YIAGA Africa called Soludo’s pledge “a threat to democracy,” stressing that vote-buying is endemic in Nigeria. Jennifer Dafwat,
YIAGA’s communication officer, explained that offering material rewards even before election day is simply another form of bribery. “Such offers exploit the widespread poverty and hunger,” Dafwat said. These practices transform elections into transactions rather than contests of ideas and competence.
She added that Soludo’s remarks highlight the profound issues within Nigeria’s political culture. Inducements are constantly used to sway voters. In short, critics argue, the incident is less an isolated gaffe than a symptom of the system.
The Anambra State government, nonetheless, flatly rejected these allegations. Commissioner for Information Law Mefor portrayed the cash promise as innocent “motivation” rather than vote-buying. He quipped that unless votes are actually bought and sold, Soludo’s pledge was just cheering on supporters.
“How many votes has Soludo purchased by such a promise?” he asked, insisting that rally handouts were harmless even if material. This defence only deepened the debate over what truly forms an electoral offence.
Meanwhile, INEC is gearing up for the November 8 poll. The commission announced its plans. It will deploy over 22,000 ad hoc officials to Anambra State. This is besides hundreds of observers and 540 journalists.
Anambra has 5,720 polling units. Each unit is staffed by a presiding officer and three assistants. This setup adds up to roughly 22,800 personnel in total.
The polls will run from 8:30 am to 2:30 pm on election day. Anyone on the queue by closing time is allowed to vote. This is according to INEC’s Kenneth Ikeagu.
Still, preparations have hit some snags. A voter-card collection drive, which started the previous Wednesday, has seen lacklustre turnout and long queues. Our correspondent reports that at many centres in Awka, Onitsha and Nnewi, only one or two INEC officials were there.
Meanwhile, hundreds of frustrated voters waited. Some gave up and left. INEC officials blamed routine market days for the slow pace but admitted staffing was thin.
An APC campaign aide complained that INEC should have deployed more workers to speed up the process. Even Dr George Moghalu’s Labour Party complained of inadequate public awareness about card collection in its strongholds.
Everyone agreed, though, that so far the exercise remained peaceful. The PVC is often called “the most powerful weapon” in a democracy, since only those with the card can vote.
Vote-Buying as a Systemic Failure
Nigeria is no stranger to the problem of inducement. Over decades of elections (local, state, and federal) candidates have routinely given money, goods, or favours to voters. This is especially common in cash-poor areas. Analysts say this is driven by two factors.
First, widespread poverty makes voters susceptible to immediate handouts. Second, the political culture rewards top-down promises and patronage.
In places where jobs and contracts depend on political connections, a ₦1m cheque can buy a lot of goodwill. Even well-intentioned civic education campaigns struggle to change a mindset where to win at the polls, one must buy votes.
This cycle of vote-buying persists in part because of the constitutional and institutional framework. Critics point out that Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution was imposed by the last military regime.
It established a highly centralised federal government. There are few effective checks on executives. State governors wield enormous financial power and political patronage, yet constitutional provisions to sanction unethical conduct are weak or unenforced.
In practice, many incumbents face little immediate cost. They skirt election law because prosecution of electoral crimes is rare until after their tenure.
As one longtime observer puts it, “our electoral system is structurally designed for the advantage of the rich and powerful. It allows them to evade accountability for everything.”
Indeed, Nigeria’s founding charter has come under fire from many quarters. Last year, a group of eminent Nigerians started urging President Tinubu to convene a constituent assembly.
These Nigerians are the so-called “Patriots” led by former Commonwealth head Emeka Anyaoku. They want to draft a truly people-driven constitution. They described the 1999 document as “warped” and outdated, and blamed it for perpetuating corruption and insecurity.
A recall for a new charter has broad support among intellectuals and grassroots activists alike. One presidential-era minister bluntly stated that Nigeria requires better leadership. New constitutional measures are also essential to resolving ongoing national crises.
But even more radical voices are gaining attention. The Nigerian Indigenous Nationalities Alliance for Self-Determination (NINAS) and the Lower Niger Congress (LNC) have a mutual alliance. Together, they have proposed an immediate and sweeping overhaul.
Under Tony Nnadi’s leadership, NINAS issued a “Constitutional Force Majeure” in December 2020. They declared the 1999 Constitution void unless fundamental changes are made.
They argue that the choice facing Nigeria is existential: sacrifice the discredited 1999 Constitution to save the union, or lose the union by clinging to it. NINAS calls the 1999 charter “fraudulent” and insists it entrenches a “toxic, master-servant union” dominated by a tiny elite.
The NINAS “Five-Point Proposition” for Reform
At the heart of NINAS’s argument is a detailed Five-Point Proposition for a transitional roadmap. Their plan, released in 2020 and reiterated publicly since then, urges:
1. Recognition of Constitutional Grievances: The federal government must formally acknowledge the many flaws in the 1999 Constitution. NINAS argues that the charter was imposed without Nigeria’s diverse peoples’ consent. It has become the root cause of the country’s structural malaise.
2. Decommissioning the 1999 Constitution: The current “military-imposed” constitution should be immediately and unequivocally renounced. In NINAS’s view, continuing to operate under it only legitimises a broken system.
3. Suspension of Elections Under the Current Charter: NINAS warns that holding further elections under the existing law would be futile. This action would only deepen instability. They warn that this action would only deepen instability. They propose stopping the cycle of elections. This includes the looming 2027 polls. They suggest waiting until a new legal framework is in place.
4. Constituent Peoples’ Dialogue: The government must invite every region to a genuine negotiation on the country’s future. It must also invite every ethnic group. This would allow “constituent components” to debate whether to continue in the union and under what terms.
5. Time-Bound Transitional Process: Finally, NINAS proposes a two-stage referendum. First, each major region should hold an empowered referendum. The purpose is to either reaffirm its commitment to the union or choose to pursue autonomy. Then, surviving components would collectively draft a new compact for the union, culminating in a national referendum.
This radical framework is meant to be “orderly” and democratic, its proponents insist, not chaos. The idea is that Nigerians themselves would decide the fate of the country. They could choose to remain a federation. Alternatively, they could form a looser confederation. Another option is to peacefully dissolve into independent states.
A recent NINAS statement put it starkly: “we may, in unfettered self-determination, agree to form a fresh union (as a Federation or Confederation), or default into an immediate dissolution of the failed union, in a manner that will result in the emergence of independent units of successor-sovereign state entities.”
Two Paths: Reform or Revolution?
The clash between reformers and revolutionaries highlights the depth of Nigeria’s constitutional crisis. The Patriots (Anyaoku’s group) favour an orderly incremental process. They propose a Constituent Assembly drawn from all 36 states (plus Abuja). They also include non-partisan experts and a nationwide referendum to approve a people’s constitution.
In contrast, NINAS demands immediate orderly action now. As an Atlantic Post analysis summarised, NINAS’s approach is “unyielding and demands an immediate severance” from the current charter.
Both sides agree that the 1999 Constitution is badly flawed, but they differ on strategy. The Patriots worry that rushing into a new order could be destabilising if not done carefully with broad consensus.
NINAS counters that incremental tweaks are useless if the whole foundation is rotten. The existing system will simply absorb reforms without real change.
Tony Nnadi and his colleagues warn about the dangers of maintaining “business as usual” under this constitution. This approach guarantees a slide towards the collapse of the country’s union.
A Historical Reckoning
This is not the first time Nigerians have questioned their constitution. The country has cycled through five major charters since independence (1960, 1963, 1979, 1993 and 1999). Each has been abandoned amid crisis – military coups in 1966 and 1983 ended the 1963 and 1979 constitutions, respectively.
The aborted Third Republic in the 1990s left Nigeria without any founding document until the military handed over in 1999. That transfer restored federalism on paper. Yet, many experts note that the 1999 text still centralises power, especially about revenue allocation, far more than earlier drafts.
Over the years, governors and legislators have passed hundreds of amendments to the 1999 Constitution. Yet, critics say this only papered over deeper contradictions.
The long-gestating 2014 National Conference brought together thousands of delegates. They came to propose a new charter. Still, it was largely ignored by the government.
Today’s activists argue that older constitutions like 1979 offered more genuine federalism. These constitutions promoted greater state autonomy and human rights protections. Activists believe that Nigeria has strayed from those ideals.
Bayelsa State Governor Douye Diri recently lamented. He said that constitutional review efforts have become a “waste of resources” under the old charter. He urged a total rethink.
Studies by Nigerian legal scholars also warn about the unitary features of the 1999 constitution. These features were never fully ratified by the people. They have been a constant source of tension.
Why Overhaul May Be the Only Way Out
The Soludo saga has given fresh urgency to this debate. In practical terms, the story illustrates how Nigeria’s current system enables abuse. A powerful governor with access to public funds can announce large handouts with impunity.
Meanwhile, the sluggish institutions struggle to respond. Many Nigerians wonder if stricter enforcement or more laws would effectively stop this trend. They question whether it is just the natural product of the incentives built into the system.
Proponents of constitutional overhaul argue that until the fundamentals change, scandals like this will recur. A new charter, for example, could distribute revenue powers differently, weaken centralised patronage, strengthen anti-corruption checks or decentralise party funding.
It could also enshrine tougher penalties or clearer enforcement of electoral laws. Above all, a genuinely people-driven constitution can restore public faith that votes truly count for policy, not cash.
As one NINAS spokesman bluntly put it last year, “the Unitary Nigeria defined by the fraudulent ‘1999 Constitution’ is a disputed project and will crash unceremoniously unless we find the discipline to address the grave constitutional grievances now driving the Union to its demise.”
The status quo is unsustainable. Nigeria must either fix its constitution at the roots or risk further collapse.
Nigerians face a pivotal choice. They can rally behind the NINAS/LNC demands or opt for the Patriots’ slower path. The outcry over Soludo’s vote-buying pledge has underscored a common fear. As long as the old order holds, democracy will stay precarious.
To many observers, the debate over constitutional overhaul is not abstract theory. It is a fight for the soul of Nigeria’s federal democratic republic.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
