State Administrative Resources and the 2027 Elections

Eze Onyekpere

As the 2027 elections draw near, it is imperative to focus attention on the use and abuse of state administrative resources (SAR) or state apparatus which may confer undue advantage to ruling parties at the federal and state levels. SARs are public resources placed at the disposal of government to be used for the public good, enhance good governance, maintain law and order and improve livelihoods. They could be institutional, fiscal, legislative, regulatory, coercive and media resources. Abuse of SAR for electioneering campaigns is illegal, unethical and against best practices in SAR management. The bar on the abuse of SAR is based on the need to provide a level playing ground for all candidates contesting a position. If public resources are to be deployed in elections, every candidate should be entitled to get a share of the resources.

Section 99 (2) of the Electoral Act 2026 states that: “State apparatus including the media shall not be employed to the advantage or disadvantage of any political party or candidate at any election”. Also, the Code of Conduct for Political Parties 2013 in S.3 (17) states that: “All parties shall discourage their members in government from using their power of incumbency to the disadvantage of other parties or their candidates during elections”. Earlier, paragraph 9 of the 2011 Political Parties Code of Conduct stated that: “All political parties shall separate party business from government business. As such, political parties shall not utilise public resources for any party activities and shall not permit any of its sponsored candidates holding public office to use public resources for the purpose of political campaigning in elections”. All the foregoing shows the need to separate political party and candidate’s business from the official exercise of governance. These provisions directly respond to the poser whether all is fair in the quest for political power. 

But how does the abuse of SAR manifest? The manifestation starts from the little and seemingly innocuous to the mind boggling and obvious abuses. Institutional resources include human resources – employees and appointees paid at the public expense, vehicles, offices, contractors, equipment, stationery, buildings, insignia of office and symbols of government authority, etc. Use of government vehicles, presidential jets and helicopters, equipment and buildings for campaigns and partisan purposes is against the law. 

Seconding public officials paid at the taxpayer’s expense to run campaigns also puts the opposition at a disadvantage. The following examples illustrate the point; appointing Tanimu Yakubu, the Director General of the Budget Office of the Federation and Zacheus Adedeji, the Chairman of the Nigeria Revenue Service, who were hired and paid at the public expense for specific national assignments, into President Tinubu’s Campaign Council violates the bar against the abuse of human and fiscal resources. Pray, what is the impression created in the minds of reasonable persons when the chief revenue officer of the Federation is designated as a director of fundraising in a presidential campaign council?  Furthermore, governors Lucky Aiyedatiwa of Ondo State, Abba Kabir Yusuf of Kano State and Umo Eno of Akwa Ibom State are reported to have hired 1000, 400 and 368 aides respectively. The aides are paid from state resources but will work for the re-election and campaign of the governors in all the wards thereby allowing them to use state fiscal resources to fund campaigns.

Canvassing for support using the official insignia like letter headed papers with coat of arms bearing the position of a public official will also be an abuse of administrative resources. Government stationery and papers should only be strictly used for government business and not for campaign purposes. Some incumbents also demand for financial support from contractors and those engaged as service providers in government commerce. This introduces an incestuous relationship that will undermine the procurement and service delivery process in the future. It will not simply be an act of begging but a request for support that will expose the refusing persons to the risk of illegal but effective sanctions in future.

Fiscal resources can be abused by processes that grant salary increases to workers very close to the election; releasing withheld promotion letters; offering employment in the public service that is known by the incumbent to be unsustainable. Also, there can be tax waivers for individuals and corporations in return for huge donations to the party and candidates, etc. Public funds through kickbacks and over-invoicing of contracts could be used to finance the campaign of incumbents. Public funds derived from the budget can also be used to directly fund campaigns. 

Regulatory and coercive resources can be deployed by incumbent administrations to the disadvantage of the opposition. This can be undertaken in a number of ways including discriminatory campaign and procession permits, regulation of use of public places, discriminatory enforcement of laws and regulations, causing misrepresentation, disenchantment and loss of reputation to the opposition, partial dissemination of information, etc. Some states are reported to have astronomically increased the cost of campaign billboard advertisements. The logic is simple – to exclude parties and candidates in the opposition because the advertisement regulatory agency is a state government agency that will definitely not charge fees from its appointor. It will only impose the fees on the opposition.  

The Nigerian Police claim a right under the outdated and colonial Public Order Act to give permits for public rallies, meetings and processions – a claim that has been struct down by the courts. During the 2007 and 2011 elections, this was abused as opposition parties were sometimes unnecessarily refused permits for rallies. Unwarranted refusal of permits for rallies, processions and public meetings amounts to an abuse of coercive and regulatory resources. Other instances will include: the closure of a city airport on the days that an opposition party has fixed its convention knowing that party stalwarts will be discouraged from attending the convention by road; unreasonable refusal of permit to use a venue; late hour cancellation of an already given permit due to “security reasons”; late hour cancellation of a booking to use a venue for a rally, for instance, a stadium or a public hall.

Abuse of security powers and law enforcement is another dimension of abuse of SAR. The task of maintaining state security, preventing corruption and abuse of office can be used to the disadvantage of the opposition. Undue freezing of accounts related to opposition parties as happened few days to the Osun State gubernatorial election, arrest and detention of key opposition figures a few days to an election, etc., are examples. Other abuses include unveiling charges of corruption that may not scale the prosecution hurdle in the courts. In a country like Nigeria where there is a popular agreement that corruption has contributed in no small measure to the political and economic backwardness of the nation, a charge or allegation of corruption even if unsupportable by credible evidence can be a hurdle on the path of the opposition. At least, it paints the victim in bad light and tars him with social deviancy which will take time to erase in popular minds. Discriminatory enforcement of laws can also lead to unfavourable circumstances for the opposition. 

Also, opposition candidates can be arrested and or charged to court on framed up charges during electioneering campaigns. The first objective would be to present the candidate negatively to the public while at the same time taking his time away from campaigns to saving himself from conviction and imprisonment. The criteria for identifying frivolous charges would include: the timing of the law enforcement action; the supporting facts disclosed and whether the facts can legally sustain a charge and conviction in law; and whether the law enforcement authorities are in disobedience of a court order. Others include; whether the candidate has been prosecuted and discharged for the same offence in the past; and whether the agencies had the opportunity of prosecuting the opposition figures but deliberately failed, refused and neglected to do so but rather chose to mar their reputation through a public allegation of corruption or any other crime at a late hour.

Judicial resources can be abused through granting extremely harsh bail conditions to opposition figures charged with crimes. The intent will be to keep them away from the political terrain until after the elections. This has nothing to do with the rule of law but it is simply an abuse of the judicial process. 

Media resource abuse come in various forms and includes the following: only candidates supported by the incumbent government have news coverage in the state media; opposition candidates are reported in disparaging terms; and incumbent candidates’ activities are given live coverage as a news item. Others are; news organs sympathetic to the opposition are heavily regulated; and discounts will be available only to state parties. S.99 (3), (4) and (5) of the electoral Act 2026 are relevant in this regard. (3) Media time shall be allocated equally among the political parties or candidates at similar hours of the day. (4) At any public electronic media, equal airtime shall be allotted to all political parties or candidates during prime times at similar hours each day, subject to the payment of appropriate fees. (5) At any public print media, equal coverage and visibility shall be allotted to all political parties. All the foregoing point to the understanding of the legislature on fairness and equal opportunities for candidates in an election.

Against the background of the foregoing, relevant regulatory and oversight agencies should brace up for the enforcement of the law. However, it is understandable that they may become partisan and look the other way when these norms are violated by incumbents. This brings to the fore the residual duty of the civil society including media and professionals to stand in the gap for the public interest.