Experts link N135bn litigation to weak electoral integrity

…raises doubts about credibility despite increased INEC funding

The federal government’s decision to set aside N135.22bn in the 2026 budget for post-election litigation has triggered sharp reactions from political stakeholders and analysts, who warn that the provision not only places an additional burden on public finances but also reflects a lingering lack of confidence in Nigeria’s electoral process, despite rising allocations to election management.

The allocation, listed as “Electoral Adjudication and Post-Election Provision,”  in the House of Representatives March 31 Order Paper has drawn scrutiny as observers warn that it reflects deeper structural issues within Nigeria’s electoral system, including a persistent expectation of widespread disputes after elections.

These fresh provisions come despite huge allocations already earmarked for election administration in the 2026 and 2027 election budgets.

The provision, listed as “Electoral Adjudication and Post-Election Provision,” is captured under the Service-Wide Votes in the 2026 Appropriation Bill, indicating that it is a centrally managed expense meant to address obligations that cut across multiple agencies.

The line item reflects the government’s expectation of continued financial pressure arising from election petitions, legal settlements, and other post-election processes.

Findings show that the allocation forms part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) charges, which total N3.70 trillion in the proposed budget.

The N135.22bn set aside for electoral adjudication alone represents about 3.65 per cent of that segment, underscoring the weight of post-election costs on public finances.

This comes even as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is already slated to receive significant funding.

The commission is expected to get N1.01 trillion as a statutory transfer in the 2026 fiscal proposal, making it the largest beneficiary within that category, which totals N4.80 trillion.

Beyond the 2026 allocation, INEC has also proposed a staggering N873.78 billion budget for the conduct of the 2027 general elections, highlighting the rising cost of Nigeria’s electoral process.

Presenting the proposal before the Joint Committee of the National Assembly on Electoral Matters in Abuja,  Joash Amupitan, INEC Chairman, said preparations for the 2027 polls had already commenced in line with statutory requirements.

He noted that early planning was critical to credible elections, recalling that the National Assembly had institutionalised the practice of approving election funding well ahead of time.

A breakdown of the proposed N873.78 billion shows that N375.75 billion is earmarked for election operations, N92.31 billion for administrative expenses, N209.21 billion for technology, and N154.90 billion for capital expenditure, while N41.61 billion is set aside for miscellaneous costs.

Within the technology component, INEC proposed N1.215 billion for the Hybrid e-EC8A and Result Management System, N162.5 million for upgrades, and N12.29 billion for the printing of Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs). Additional provisions include N500 million for hand sanitisers, N359.88 million for methylated spirit, and N450.24 million for cotton wool and related materials to support health and safety during voting.

The commission also budgeted N1.25 billion for the maintenance of operational vehicles and N300 million for stakeholder engagements, including retreats for political parties.

For the 2026 fiscal year, INEC proposed a budget of N171.9 billion, exceeding the N140 billion envelope earlier provided by the Ministry of Finance. The proposal includes N109.07 billion for personnel, N18.74 billion for overheads, N42.63 billion for electoral activities, and N1.4 billion for capital projects.

Speaking to the fresh addition, Chinedu Obi, the Director-General of the Inter-Party Advisory Council, described the move as contextually understandable but raised serious reservations about its size and potential implications.

“Post-election lawsuits are normal and expected,” he said.

“But if the Federal Government is budgeting for it, it should be in the context of the judiciary and infrastructure required to deal with such cases, or institutions like INEC that may need to defend themselves.”

He noted that while agencies directly involved in the electoral process could justifiably receive such support, the concern arises if public funds are indirectly used to support political actors.

“Where I think it becomes abnormal is if the government is budgeting this to support candidates in elections,” Obi cautioned.

“Candidates should bear the cost of their post-election suits themselves. Once government funds are involved, it creates an uneven playing field.”

Obi further referenced ongoing efforts to ensure that all election disputes are resolved before swearing-in, describing it as a necessary reform to prevent incumbency advantage in legal battles.

“You’ve noticed in the past that a president already sworn in could use state resources to defend himself against an opponent who is less privileged,” he said.

“That is why resolving disputes before swearing-in is important.”

While acknowledging the legitimacy of budgeting for post-election processes, he described the N135 billion allocation as excessive.

“For me, the sum is outrageous. I don’t expect the government to spend more than N10 billion on post-election matters, even when you consider legal fees, logistics, and judicial support. N135 billion is huge, especially in the context of the current economic realities,” he added.

Echoing similar concerns, Innocent Okechukwu, a political analyst,  argued that the provision sends troubling signals about the credibility of Nigeria’s electoral system.

“Setting aside N135 billion for electoral adjudication suggests that the system already anticipates a high volume of disputes,” he said.

“In simple terms, it means there is not enough confidence in the integrity of election outcomes.”

He described the development as unhealthy for a democracy, noting that credible electoral systems should naturally reduce the number of cases that end up in court.

“Elections should be transparent and strong enough that only a few results are challenged, not something that requires such a massive budget for litigation,” Okechukwu said.

Beyond concerns about perception, he also questioned the prioritisation of public spending.

“N135 billion is a significant amount of money, especially at a time when the country is grappling with inflation and competing needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure,” he said.

“Spending this much on post-election disputes can be seen as misplaced priorities.”

Okechukwu suggested that greater investment in improving the electoral process itself would be a more sustainable approach.

“If elections are better managed and more credible, the number of disputes will reduce, and so will the cost of adjudication,” he added. (BusinessDay)