The recently concluded Ekiti State governorship election will likely be remembered for two reasons. The first is the emphatic victory recorded by Governor Biodun Oyebanji of the All Progressives Congress (APC), making him the first governorship candidate to win a back-to-back mandate. The second is the controversy generated by reports that Edo State APC Chairman, Jarret Tenebe, was accredited as an election observer despite being a prominent partisan actor in a political party that participated in the election.
By all indications, Governor Oyebanji entered the election as the overwhelming favourite. Since assuming office, he has enjoyed considerable political support across party lines, a rarity in Nigeria’s highly polarised political environment. His administration cultivated relationships with influential political figures in the state, including leaders from opposition parties, traditional institutions, and various interest groups. All the previous governors of the state, irrespective of their political affiliation, reportedly supported his candidacy for a re-election. This broad coalition of support significantly weakened the opposition’s chances before the first ballot was cast.
You may also like:
- FAAC Windfall and the Missing Development Dividend: What Are Nigerian Governors Doing With the Money?
- When the Pepper Reaches the Pepper Seller’s Eye: The Lessons Nigeria Keeps Refusing to Learn
- June 12: Nigeria’s Democratic Journey and the Test of 2027
- From Chibok to Oriire: How Reactive Governance Keeps Nigerian Students Unsafe
The election featured candidates from several political parties, including the APC, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and other registered parties. However, political analysts had long predicted that the contest would largely revolve around the APC and the PDP. As the campaigns progressed, many observers noted that the opposition struggled to generate the momentum necessary to mount a serious challenge against the incumbent governor. After all, the opposition had been weakened at the centre; their impact in the state was clearly illusory.
When the results were eventually announced, the scale of the victory appeared to confirm those pre-election assessments. Oyebanji secured a commanding lead, winning by a margin that left little doubt about the popularity he currently enjoys among many voters in the state. Even some critics of the electoral process acknowledged that the governor’s political strength made victory very easy and highly probable.
Ordinarily, such a decisive outcome should have shifted public attention toward analysing the governor’s political appeal and the weaknesses of the opposition. Instead, discussions quickly turned to a more troubling issue: the integrity of election observation.
Election observers occupy a special place in democratic systems. Their responsibility is not to campaign, canvass support, or defend any candidate. They are expected to independently assess election conduct and provide objective reports that strengthen public confidence in the electoral process.
The credibility of election observers rests almost entirely on their independence. Across the world, observers are usually drawn from civil society organisations, professional associations, faith-based groups, academic institutions, and international organisations. Their value lies in the fact that they have no direct stake in the outcome of the election.
This is why the reported accreditation of a serving party chairman as an observer has generated considerable concern. A party chairman is not a neutral actor. By definition, he is an active participant in the political process. His party’s success is his success. Its defeat is his defeat. Even if such an individual conducts himself professionally, the appearance of a conflict of interest remains.
Democratic institutions depend heavily on public trust. In electoral matters, perception often matters almost as much as reality. Once citizens begin to suspect that the lines between participants and referees have become blurred, confidence in the process begins to suffer.
It is important to state that concerns about observer accreditation do not automatically invalidate the election result. Governor Oyebanji’s popularity and the margin of victory suggest that the controversy may not have altered the final outcome. Yet this is precisely why the issue deserves attention. If the winner was already widely expected to prevail, there was no reason for electoral authorities to expose the process to avoidable controversy.
The question many Nigerians are asking is straightforward: How did a serving political party chairman obtain observer accreditation in an election involving his party? Was this consistent with existing guidelines? Were adequate checks conducted before accreditation was granted? If exceptions were made, what informed those decisions?
The answers matter because electoral credibility is built through procedures, not assumptions. Strong institutions do not rely on the popularity of candidates to validate elections. They rely on transparent rules that apply equally to everyone.
Nigeria’s democracy has travelled a long and difficult road. The country has witnessed disputed elections, legal battles, electoral violence, and declining public confidence in institutions. In response, reforms have been introduced to make elections more transparent and more credible. Those gains should not be undermined by actions that create unnecessary doubts about impartiality.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the Ekiti election is bigger than one individual. It is about protecting the integrity of democratic processes. Political actors should be contestants. Observers should be independent monitors. Electoral authorities should ensure that those boundaries remain clear and unquestionable.
If controversies of this nature are left unaddressed, they could have serious consequences for future elections. Political parties and candidates who lose elections may increasingly question not only the results but also the neutrality of the institutions and individuals involved in the electoral process. This could fuel litigation, deepen political distrust, and weaken public confidence in democracy itself in a asociety where voter apathy is prevalent.
To prevent such occurrences, electoral authorities must strengthen accreditation procedures, conduct thorough background checks on prospective observers, and establish clear disqualification criteria for individuals with active partisan affiliations. Observer lists should also be made public well ahead of elections to allow scrutiny by stakeholders. The credibility of future elections will depend not only on technological improvements and voter participation but also on ensuring that those entrusted with observing elections are unquestionably independent and free from political interests.
Governor Oyebanji’s victory may well reflect the will of the electorate. However, democracy demands more than popular winners. It demands processes that inspire confidence among both winners and losers. The strength of an election is not measured solely by the margin of victory but also by the integrity of the institutions that conduct, monitor, and certify it.
That is why questions surrounding observer neutrality should never be dismissed as trivial. They go to the very heart of democratic legitimacy.
