Nigeria’s fragile democratic experiment was thrust back into the national spotlight following a blistering intervention by former presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Mr. Peter Obi, who accused the House of Representatives of deliberately protecting a broken and corrupt political system by refusing to criminalise vote-buying during party primaries. His remarks, sharp and uncompromising, have reignited an old but unresolved debate about whether Nigeria’s electoral reforms are genuine efforts to clean up the system or merely cosmetic changes designed to preserve elite interests.
At the heart of the controversy is a decision taken by lawmakers during the clause-by-clause consideration of proposed amendments to the Electoral Act 2022. In what many reform advocates describe as a defining moment, members of the House voted down a proposal that would have explicitly outlawed the inducement of voters during party primaries. The move shocked civil society organisations, electoral reform groups, and many ordinary Nigerians who had hoped that the current review of the Electoral Act would finally confront the entrenched culture of vote trading at its source.
Party primaries, often described as the womb from which Nigeria’s elections are born, have long been plagued by allegations of cash inducements, material gifts, delegate manipulation, and open bribery. For years, critics have argued that general elections merely reflect the rot that already festers within the internal processes of political parties. It was against this background that Peter Obi’s reaction struck a chord across the country.
In a strongly worded statement published on his verified X (formerly Twitter) account, Obi lamented what he described as a historic missed opportunity by the House of Representatives to confront a practice that has hollowed out Nigeria’s democracy. He said Nigerians had hoped the lower chamber would rise above partisan and self-serving considerations to take a principled stand against vote-buying, which he described as a “cancer” that has eaten deep into the country’s political system.
According to Obi, the refusal to criminalise vote-buying at the level of party primaries amounts to protecting a broken system rather than safeguarding Nigeria’s democratic future. He argued that credible elections cannot emerge from corrupt foundations and that any reform effort that ignores the primaries is fundamentally flawed. In his words, democracy cannot thrive where bribery and inducement are treated as acceptable political tools.
Obi’s intervention was not merely rhetorical. It reflected a broader frustration shared by many Nigerians who believe that successive electoral reforms have failed to address the real drivers of electoral malpractice. While the Electoral Act 2022 introduced innovations such as electronic transmission of results and clearer timelines, critics argue that it stopped short of confronting the internal corruption within political parties, where candidates are often “selected” rather than elected.
The former Anambra State governor warned that by refusing to criminalise vote-buying at the foundational stage of party primaries, lawmakers had effectively legitimised corruption within the democratic process. He said any effort to stop vote-buying must begin at the primaries, because once candidates emerge through fraudulent means, it becomes almost impossible to enforce integrity at later stages.
“A democracy where votes are bought is not a true democracy,” Obi wrote. “It is a criminal marketplace.” He insisted that national progress cannot be achieved while inducement and bribery are allowed to determine who emerges as candidates for public office. For Obi, the House’s decision sends a dangerous signal that electoral corruption is tolerable, as long as it occurs within party structures.
The decision by the House of Representatives has also raised questions about the sincerity of Nigeria’s political elite in pursuing genuine reform. Analysts point out that many lawmakers are products of the same system they were being asked to reform. Criminalising vote-buying at primaries would not only expose future aspirants to sanctions but could also retrospectively cast a shadow over how many current office holders emerged.
This inherent conflict of interest, observers argue, may explain why lawmakers were reluctant to endorse stricter rules. By voting against the proposal, the House effectively preserved a system that benefits entrenched political actors at the expense of ordinary citizens. To reform advocates, it was a classic case of legislators acting as judges in their own cause.
Beyond the halls of parliament, Obi warned of the wider societal consequences of tolerating vote-buying. He noted that the culture of inducement has now trickled down beyond mainstream politics into town unions, village associations, student union elections, clubs, and professional bodies. According to him, younger Nigerians are increasingly internalising the idea that leadership is something to be purchased rather than earned through credibility, competence, and service.
This normalisation of corruption, Obi argued, represents one of the gravest threats to Nigeria’s future. When vote-buying becomes routine, it erodes civic values, undermines meritocracy, and breeds cynicism among citizens. Voters begin to see elections not as a means of choosing leaders but as transactional events where immediate personal gain trumps long-term collective interest.
The former presidential candidate’s comments also come at a time when Nigeria’s democracy is under intense scrutiny, both domestically and internationally. The 2023 general elections were marred by allegations of irregularities, logistical failures, and vote trading, prompting widespread calls for reform. Many Nigerians had pinned their hopes on the ongoing review of the Electoral Act to close loopholes and strengthen accountability.
Instead, the House’s decision has reinforced fears that electoral reform remains hostage to political self-interest. Civil society groups have warned that failing to criminalise vote-buying at primaries will continue to undermine the credibility of elections, regardless of technological improvements or procedural changes introduced later.
Legal experts have also weighed in on the matter, noting that the absence of clear criminal sanctions for inducement during primaries creates a legal grey area. While vote-buying during general elections is prohibited under existing laws, the internal processes of parties often escape similar scrutiny. This disparity, they argue, allows corruption to flourish unchecked at the earliest and most critical stage of the electoral cycle.
For Obi, addressing vote-buying at the primaries is not optional but essential. He stressed that without tackling the problem at its roots, any measures taken later will lack the strength to endure. In his view, reforms that focus only on election day logistics while ignoring how candidates emerge amount to treating symptoms rather than curing the disease.
The controversy has also sparked renewed debate about internal party democracy in Nigeria. Political parties are supposed to be vehicles for aggregating interests and producing credible candidates. Instead, many have become closed shops dominated by godfathers, moneybags, and power brokers who manipulate primaries through cash inducements and intimidation.
By rejecting the proposal to criminalise vote-buying at this level, critics argue, the House of Representatives has effectively endorsed this dysfunctional model. It sends a message that as long as corruption occurs within party walls, it is beyond the reach of the law. For reform advocates, this undermines the very essence of democratic accountability.
Obi’s critique resonates particularly strongly among young Nigerians, many of whom rallied behind his presidential campaign as a symbol of change. To them, the House’s decision reinforces the perception that the political establishment is unwilling to reform itself. It also deepens distrust in institutions that are supposed to represent the will of the people.
In asking, “How long will we allow our society to be corrupted when the solution lies in addressing the roots of the problem?” Obi framed the issue as a moral and generational question. He suggested that Nigeria stands at a crossroads, where it must choose between perpetuating a cycle of corruption or committing to painful but necessary reforms that could restore faith in democracy.
The fallout from the House’s decision is likely to continue reverberating. Civil society organisations are already mobilising to pressure lawmakers to revisit the issue, either through further amendments or through public advocacy. Some have called on the Senate, which will also consider aspects of the Electoral Act review, to take a firmer stance on vote-buying at primaries.
Whether such pressure will yield results remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the debate has exposed a fundamental tension at the heart of Nigeria’s democracy: the clash between entrenched political interests and the demand for genuine reform. Peter Obi’s intervention has ensured that this tension remains in the public eye.
As Nigeria looks ahead to future elections, the question remains whether its leaders are willing to confront the uncomfortable truths about how power is acquired within the political system. For Obi and other reform advocates, democracy cannot be for sale, and any system that allows votes to be bought at any stage is unworthy of the name.
In the final analysis, the House of Representatives’ rejection of the proposal to criminalise vote-buying at party primaries may come to be seen as a defining moment. Either it will galvanise renewed efforts to clean up Nigeria’s electoral process, or it will stand as yet another example of how opportunities for reform are squandered in the service of a broken status quo. For now, the verdict of public opinion appears increasingly aligned with Obi’s stark warning: a democracy built on corrupt foundations cannot endure.